Talk:Siege of Kut

Kut-al-Amara or just Kut?

How should it go in the top of the battle box? Tiquicia 01:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just Kut, To the extent the battle is remembered, "Siege of Kut" is the best known name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nunquam Dormio (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Aftermath, last sentence.

"In a few short months, the city of Kut was reborn with a growing population of two hundred [3]."

1. I think "In a few short months" is not encyclopedialike and ugly, maybe that's just me but it's certainly not very precise. 2. According to the article the pre-siege population was around 6500. If it was reborn in 1917 with a population of 200 something big should have happened to the population, this is however not mentioned. 3. The previous sentence says 'slowly rebuild' and receiving funds for reconstructing. While this doesn't flatly contradict the last sentence it is at odds with it.

Come to think of it, last-but-one-sentence "..while those citizens who had lost family in the siege received funds for the reconstruction of their homes". Does it mean all citizens that met this criteria? Wat if a citizen lost family but their homes were intact?, wat if someone's house was destroyed but had no family? I think the sentence is vague and probably not true.

If these sentences are very well sourced they should be reworded, if not & in the meantime I think the end should be replaced by "..war torn country and Kut was slowly rebuild." Not much I admit but also not dubious.

Pukkie (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

"Some of the Indian prisoners of war from Kut later came to join the Turkish Indian Volunteer Corps under the influence of Deobandis of Tehrek e Reshmi Rumal and the abject support of the German High Command." I really can't see why this should be described as "abject". I have changed "abject support" to "encouragement". Maproom (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Halil Pasa

In the whole article there is almost no mention of Halil Pasa and other Turkish commanders who defeated a superior force. It is as if British fought the Martians. There is not a single Turkish reference!--Murat (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle Map

its in a bad place and so will move to the right so it does not overlap the text.--XChile (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It is also for the wrong battle - the map is from 1st Battle of Kut in September 1915, whereas the Siege didn't start until December 1915DavisGL (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Question :

Its says here :

(copy paste) Strength of allied troops : 31,000

Casualties and losses 30,000 dead or wounded 13,000 captured

How Allies can have 31 000 men involved in fightings and 30 000 + 13 000 casualties? 89.172.66.174 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)soundwave

The answer is simple; Some of the captured men were likely also wounded, hence falling into both categories. 96.61.59.200 (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)