Talk:First Battle of the Jordan

Original Research

This article uses several unpublished war diaries, and using them for references is original research. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of the war diaries in this article is restricted to notes. There is no interpretation of the diaries and the use is within Wikipedia guidelines as the Battle of Mughar Ridge article which has been awarded a GA has also been targeted by Jim Sweeney. For the benefit of readers, the following appears on the talk page of that article -

“ 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) ”

• • Apologies. I failed to sign this post, yesterday --Rskp (talk) 00:02, 10 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) 11:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

4th (ANZAC) Battalion and other unit names

There is no need to cite what is obvious and linked, which ones do you believe are false ? and Although the recent renaming of the 4th Battalion, Imperial Camel Corps Brigade is supported by a reputable web site source, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps would not have formed a camel battalion. You need to get away from ANZAC being only the name of the corps, every unit that had a mixture of Australian and New Zealand toops used ANZAC. As you should be well aware of, as the links to the AWM site have been used several times.

• ANZAC Mounted Division http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_13621.asp
• 4th (ANZAC) Battalion ICC http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_13624.asp
• I ANZAC Corps despite the repetition of the word Corps in their name
• II ANZAC Corps http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/anzac/acronym/
• 1st (ANZAC) Wireless Signal Squadron http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/anzac/acronym/
• II ANZAC (XXII Corps) Mounted Regiment http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_20855.asp

Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not a question of belief but one of sources. The sources I've read and used to edit this page do not use ANZAC to describe the 4th Battalion. Jim Sweeney you need to understand that the acronym ANZAC does not refer to every Australian and New Zealand unit in the first world war, just to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. --Rskp (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See above your claim is not supported by the authority the Australian War Memorial. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand source also uses 4th (ANZAC) Battalion [1]. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

But the literature cited in this article does not. That is why I have added a note which acknowledges that fact.--Rskp (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does citation 77 to the Australian War Memorial cites the name. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Let me rephrase as a result of your added citation. Almost all the literature cited in this article does not refer to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps forming a battalion in the ICCB, for the simple reason that an army corps is much bigger than a battalion and could not fit in to a battalion of camels. I think we may be talking here about camels and eyes of needles :) [Matthew 19:24] --Rskp (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You have fixated on the ANZAC Corps, yes I agree the corps did not for this battalion. It was formed from Australian and New Zealand troops and therefore given the name ANZAC. Like every other mixed Australian and New Zealand formation in World War's I and II and there was even talk of forming an ANZAC brigade in the Vietnam War. It has nothing to do with the separate corps, its all about the make up of the battalion etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please keep your posts out of the personal arena. You have changed the name of the 4th Battalion on the basis of one web site. I admire your daring but again caution you to do some more solid research before you go changing names of units like this one. Talk of forming brigades with inaccurate acronyms and a battalion being known as the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps battalion are both problematic. Please stop attempting to proliferating the inappropriate use of this acronym. --Rskp (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Its named so in more than one reliable sources, I did not make it up, see the parent article Imperial Camel Corps. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is another that you should appreciate its the 4th ANZAC Battalion war diary. Also note they use ANZAC. [2] Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

But as the discussion on MILHIST regarding the acronym and the Anzac Mounted Division makes clear here [3] the use of the acronym is wrong when it is not describing the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. --Rskp (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No it does not say that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Singapore mountain battery

How we going to sort this, the Hong Kong and Singapore mountain battery was a part of the British Indian Army [4] but also part of the Royal Garrison Artillery of the Royal Artillery not the Royal Indian Artillery. Any way apart from the name there seems to be no link with Hong Kong or Singapore. Either its British Army or Indian Army ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

RGA was British Army. When the British directly administered Hong Kong and Singapore after the dissolution of the British East India Company, they imported outsiders, especially Sikhs, to form the Police forces and some military units in the new posessions. The military units would have been administered at first by the Colonial Office, but eventually the British Army took them over. The RGA was formed at first to control heavy artillery in coastal fortifications in Britain, but the HK & S Battery obviously formed part of the garrison of those places, even if composed of mainly Indian personnel (though also some "Portuguese, Chinese and others"). I reverted your edit because it read something like "...the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade with its attached artillery, the 10th Heavy Battery RGA etc." By attached artillery, you no doubt meant the HK & S Battery, but the wording suggested that it meant the 10th Heavies only, removing the unfortunate HK & S battery from the order of battle altogether. I hope you and RoslynSKP can sort things out amicably, and accurately.HLGallon (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No that's Ok, I was looking at Hong Kong and Singapore to the inf box. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No further comments so deleted HK and Singapore and countries in the inf box, the above suggest they were part of the British or Indian army. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

From British Troops in China 1939: "The Hong Kong Singapore Battalion Royal Garrison Artillery was formed in 1903 as a local enlisted regiment of artillery". As some sites show personnel enlisting before that date, independent companies must have existed before the battalion was formed. See also Great War Forum and Indian personnel service records, both of which state that the battalion had two companies of Moslems from northern India, one of Sikhs and one of "mixed castes, Portuguese and Chinese", which conjures visions of dockside riff-raff. By 1903, there must have been second- and third-generation communities of Indians and Sikhs in those two ports.HLGallon (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As these batteries were formed within what were at the time, two British colonies they more properly should be listed in the infobox under British Empire like the other colonies and dominions. --Rskp (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No they were part of the British Indian Army which the above makes clear, see here [5]. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Their personnel (not "personal" as the site spells it, which doesn't improve my confidence in it) were drawn from the Indian Army, but the Royal Garrison Artillery was part of the British Army. HLGallon (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Either way were they a Hong Kong or Singapore unit. It would seem wrong to put those countries in the inf box as being represented in the battles or campaigns by the battery. Its either British or Indian army. Precedent for British would seem very much like the British Gurkhas, we do not list Nepal in the inf box when they have been used. But at the time the British Indian Army, was their parent army. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the name, this battery was formed jointly by Hong Kong and Singapore. Does that not imply that it was established in the then colonies of Singapore and Hong Kong, like the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade was established in the dominion of New Zealand? Its my understanding that the British India Army had a wide area of interest including Mesopotamia so maybe this extended as far east as Hong Kong and Singapore. But I'm not sure why it important to decide if British Army or British India Army personnel served in the battery. Yes, good point about the Gurkhas. I think its important to add as much info as possible to these infoboxes. For that reason I will again undo Jim Sweeney's cutting the battery from the infobox. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

HLGallon regarding the spelling of personnel I am at a loss as my search of the article could not find 'personal'. Could you please let me know where this error is so that I can correct it. --Rskp (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

From the NZ history site, "Despite their unit title, the battery's personal [sic] were in fact drawn from the Indian Army." This isn't Wikipedia's fault. I would remove the Hong Kong and Singapore flags from the info box. Basing their inclusion on the name of the unit is superficial reasoning. The battery was formed from Indian personnel for the defence of those possessions, not from those possessions (with the proviso that some personnel may have been locally recruited from minority communities such as Portuguese or second- and subsequent generations of Sikh and other immigrant communities, though this is a guess on my part and hence OR). HLGallon (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the spelling error, I thought you were referring to the 1st Transjordan article. It seems the consensus is to cut Hong Kong and Singapore flags. Will do. --Rskp (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy violations

Putting copy violations in quotes is still a violation. Your not quoting someone just copying the book text. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney, its perfectly acceptable to quote directly from books, so long as they are in quotation marks and don't take up the whole of an article and are properly sourced. It appears it acceptable on Wikipedia to copy substantial amounts of material from the work of one editor and create a whole new article based on the other editor's work. Bit lazy though, don't you think? But I'm now a bit worried, your claim the Anzac Mounted Division report was copied was quite incorrect, so how accurate are you regarding Powles supposed direct quotes? --Rskp (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to proposed title; redirect created and unneeded qualifier removed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

---

First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918) → First Battle of the Jordan – The term "Transjordan" in the current title is out of place. Any attack on Amman would be "Transjordan". This attack was British, but we don't need to go further than the elegant name given the battle, I believe, by the Ottomans themselves. Srnec (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. The current title is recognisable, it clearly, concisely and precisely describes this military attack by the EEF. The title is consistent with two other articles which also deal with military operations in the area across the Jordan River. The year has been added to avoid confusion and locate all three articles within World War I. --Rskp (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would support something similar to "Battle of Amman (1918)" or "First British raid on Amman (1918). Sources do not agree on a name. This source from Google Books refers to "First Battle of Amman" and "Second Battle of Amman". This one refers to "Battle of Amman (1918)", first British raid and second British raid. In this it is "the first Transjordan raid" and "the second Transjordan raid". Here it is a "great British expedition north" with "two previous expeditions". Neotarf (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are numerous possibilities, but it is unclear to me why you oppose the requested one in favour of, apparently, anything else. Srnec (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry about the links, I have fixed them now.
    • I agree "First Transjordan attack on Amman" is wildly anachronistic, and should be changed. Think "Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor", "German attack on Poland", or "American attack on Iraq". You cannot have the country of Transjordan attacking itself before it even exists.
    • The claim that "the First Battle of the Jordan" was the name used by the Central Powers 1) does not appear to be sourced. Since none of them spoke English, I highly doubt they called it that. 2) if indeed used by them it would not be neutral per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history which also says "If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "battle of X" or "siege of Y", where X and Y are the locations of the operations" 3) The operation was part of a larger campaign in Palestine and Syria, which ended in the capture of Damascus. The name "First Battle of the Jordan", using the definite article, in English can only refer to the Jordan River. At the very least, sources agree the target of the raid was Amman, even if the expedition was stopped at Salt. "Amman" should probably be part of the title. Neotarf (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The use of First Battle of the Jordan would be concise but ambiguous and misleading.

Apart from the attack on Jisr ed Damieh in September and some fighting on the eastern bank of the Jordan River during the 2nd Transjordan near Jisr ed Damieh, no fighting occurred on the Jordan. The major attack on Amman occurred many miles from the Jordan River/Valley. Please refer to the map included here and others in the three Transjordan articles, which will confirm the locations and distances involved here.

Transjordan theatre of operations 21 March to 2 April; 30 April to 4 May and 20 to 29 September 1918

The use of 'Transjordan' is concise and unambiguous because all the fighting during this British Empire attack, took place on the eastern side of the Jordan River and Jordan Valley, on the other side of the river from the British Empire forces front line. Further, all the fighting occurred in places currently located in the Transjordan; the region where the Emirate was later established.

If 'Transjordan' is not referred to, then it will be difficult for readers to negotiate their way through the first occupation of Es Salt about 15 miles (24 km) from the Jordan River (no fighting) and the attack on Amman about 25 miles (40 km) from the Jordan River, with the second occupation of Es Salt (fighting) and the second attack on Shunet Nimrin about 4 miles (6.4 km) from the Jordan River, which began in March/April and ended in April/May with the later capture of Jisr ed Damieh on the Jordan River, the capture of Shunet Nimrin, third occupation of Es Salt and the capture of Amman in September 1918.

If Amman is not mentioned it will be very easy for readers to mix these operation up with the subsequent attacks which occurred miles away but only a few weeks later. Further, if Amman is not mentioned in the title of the article, then the main location where fighting took place over a period of days; the precise identification, is not reflected in the article's title, and the fact of Amman's location more than 20 miles east of the Jordan River is also lost sight of. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

As "Transjordan" is commonly associated with the 1921-onwards state - use of "Transjordan" could be taken as meaning an attack by the local inhabitants of the region, and therefore perhaps it should be "First trans-Jordan attack..." or "First across the Jordan attack...". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The year was added to the name of this article in an attempt to avoid these kinds of problems. --Rskp (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not give it the British name; they won. I don't think the name "Transjordan" was used much before Emir Abdullah moved his government to Amman, or maybe a little before that when he moved his troops out of Saudi. At any rate, the entire region east of the Jordan River was politically disorganized although technically part of the Ottoman empire. There certainly wasn't any army that could be considered to be "Transjordanian" at that point.

Just out of curiosity, why is this not considered to be part of the Arab Revolt? Neotarf (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that Neotarf just committed the error ("there certainly wasn't any army that could be considered to be "Transjordanian" at that point") Graeme spoke of ("use of ‘Transjordan’ could be taken as meaning an attack by the local inhabitants of the region"). The term is useless in this case because any attack on a Transjordanian city like Amman is a Transjordanian attack. It's redundant, but "First attack on Amman (1918)" is bare. The proposed title is used in sources, is in fact an official name used by one of the participants, and is perfectly plain and unambiguous. The only thing it isn't is truly descriptive, but since when are battles named that way? Srnec (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Neotarf, the EEF didn't win this attack. 'Transjordan' in 1918 refers to the EEF attack across the Jordan River into the highlands of Moab. There was an army in the area; the Fourth Army (Ottoman Empire) which consisted of about 12,000 soldiers with headquarters at Amman. I guess its not included in the Arab Revolt because it was a British Empire attack. By the way, thanks for adding my signature. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I see now the Arab force was in Ma’an under Faisel at the time and did coordinate with Allenby's group on the 2nd raid (30 April – 4 May). Neotarf (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Regarding your suggested names the First and Second Battles of Amman are not the same operations as the First and Second Raids. The First attack on Amman was in March-April, the Second attack on Amman was in September, but the fighting in September was over a much wider area than just the fighting for Amman. The First Raid was on Amman while the Second Raid occurred many miles from Amman about Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt. --Rskp (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Srnec, leaving out 'Transjordan' makes the attack on Amman look like it could have come from Mesopotamia or anywhere; whereas the attack came from across the Jordan River. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The eventual state of Transjordan appears to have been confined to the east side of the Jordan River. Neotarf (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • Roslyn, there doesn't seem to be any agreement about naming conventions about these military operations, but everyone pretty much agrees that there were three British operations targeting Amman. The first raid began March 21, the second raid was April 30 – 4; both got as far as Salt. The third was a major offensive and started on September 19 with faked buildup of troops and horses on the border, then a push north to Meggido. The British calvary outflanked and encircled the Turkish troops to the east, and Amman was taken on September 25. I have fixed the links above, and you can now see how four different scholars treat the same subject. One breaks down the military operations as follows:

Capture of Jerusalem (08-26/12/1917)
First Battle of Amman (27-30/03/1918)
Battle of Es Salt (30/04-03/05/1918)
Battle of Abu Tellul (14/07/1918)
Battle of Megiddo (19-21/09/1918)
Battle of Nablus (20/09/1918)
Battle of Wadi Fara (21/09/1918)
Second Battle of Amman (25/09/1918)
Battle of Semakh (25/09/1918)
Battle of Kaukab (30/09/1918)
Capture of Damascus (01/10/1918)

Another refers to the whole March-September action collectively as "Battle of Amman (1918)". Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Premature close

Why has this been closed while there is active discussion going on, and less than two hours after the last comment? And why has it been moved to a title with no year, without any consensus to do so? Neotarf (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION for the consensus to avoid unnecessary precision. Unanimous opposition to the new name after it made it to the backlog at WP:RM for why it was closed after more than a week of discussion. You're letting your personal disdain for me color your judgment. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)