Talk:Battle of Beersheba (1917)

Artillery

Quote " The Australian artillery opened fire with shrapnel from long range but it was ineffective against the widely spaced horsemen" shouldn't that be some other force's artillery???62.219.213.74 11:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) It has been changed at some time to Austrian artillery. Is this correct? I wasn't aware of the Austrian's being involved there?

kamikaze

how was that any different that japanese pilots on suicide missions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup required?

Reviewing this article as it stands, it doesn't seem to me to be encyclopaedic any longer. There is too much space devoted to rubbishing previous versions, too much detail irrelevant to the main narrative and too many references to maps not available under wikipedia WP:EGG HLGallon (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

After a quick read I think only the third paragraph of the prelude is really awry. The rest is mostly ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.16.143 (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with HLGallon, specifically relating to the long paragraph regarding what was the last successful cavalry charge. This is military fancruft, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Apart from the great problems of defining what was "successful" and what was a "cavalry charge", there's nothing to say a cavalry charge in the future couldn't be successful. Observing that something was "the last" without expounding a theory for why this was so leaves the reader without insight. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

My objections to the article as it stood on July 31, 2008 seem mostly to have been addressed. Someone had obviously done much research but the ridiculously detailed Turkish order of battle, which required a very large scale map to understand (and which I suggested was irrelevant to the main narrative) has now been moved to an endnote. The dismissal of the "Haversack Trick", which verged on POV, has also been removed. The drawback of presenting Turkish documents to prove that the Turkish had either good intelligence or excellent guesswork as to British intentions merely presents further questions as to how they managed to lose. Was there treachery, cowardice or incompetence ? It certainly appears that the Turks did not act upon their own appreciation; so its inclusion was perhaps another irrelevancy. Unless anyone has further objections to the tone of the article (perhaps on the grounds of the "last successful charge") I will remove the Personal Essay tag in the next few days. HLGallon (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill Woerlee addressed the concern, which was, as HLGallon surmised, about the justification for an action as being the "last successful charge": I've removing my essay tag. I actually came back to the article to clarify what I was asking, but apparently my meaning came through, even the wording wasn't especially precise.

The Turkish intelligence question is intriguing: "treachery, cowardice or incompetence". An historical itch that is difficult to scratch. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Defensive Tactics

It's been awhile but I remember reading something about the tactics involved in this battle, I think maybe they should be included (if someone can find a reference) because they had an influence on the result.

Light Horse Infantry Tactics - Troopers would use their mounts to rapidly close the gap between them and their enemy, at a certain distance they would dismount, leaving their horses behind they would then fight the battle as traditional infantry.

Defensive Tactics v Light Horse - The tactics of the Light Horse were well known, as such the defenders would preset their sights to the approximate distance they would dismount, holding fire until they did. Dismounting took time, during this the troopers were vulnerable, easy targets (If memory serves this tactic led to heavy casualties in previous engagements in other conflicts)

Light Horse Tactics in this battle - Instead of dismounting as per normal, the troopers committed to a full charge, riding past where their opposition had sighted their weapons, this meant when they finally opened fire it was inaccurate allowing large numbers of the Australian to get to & past the Turkish lines - Significantly altering the outcome of the battle 125.237.102.11 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Western Front photo irrelevant

• The AWM gives the following information about this photograph - "Outdoor portrait of 3109 Trooper (Tpr) Alexander Gibson Forsyth, 4th Light Horse Regiment. Tpr Forsyth died of pneumonia on 2 April 1917 in England."

• Clearly Forsyth took no part in the Beersheba attack, although he was in the 4th Light Horse Regiment; in one of the two squadrons sent to France. When "the 13th Regiment went to France ... two squadrons of the 4th Regiment were also sent and joined to a squadron of the Otago Mounted Rifles to become the 2nd Anzac Mounted Regiment (eventually retitled XXII Corps Mounted Troops)." [Peter Dennis, Jeffrey Grey, Ewan Morris, Robin Prior with Jean Bou, The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History 2nd edition (Melbourne: Oxford University Press Australia & New Zealand, 2008) p. 319] This photograph does not depict anyone involved in the Beersheba attack and is misleading because the trooper is armed with a sword and wearing a bulky, winter woolly uniform. --Rskp (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is worth pointing out a number of relevant points.

First, at the indecisive battle of Katia, two, and possibly three, mounted brigades took part in a mounted charge, which bogged down in soft ground and marsh. This occurred some time prior to the battle of Beersheba.

Secondly, the contention that the Imperial mounted units were trained for mounted charges, and the Dominion troops were not shows a complete and utter disregard of the realities of the Empire structure and commitment. For the large part, the Dominion senior officers were largely drawn from long standing pre-war militia units, and in fact Chauvel himself was a career cavalryman, who anticipated a posting to Britain as part of his career progression. It is also worth noting that the charge itself was conducted in 'artillery formation', with an interval of 5 yards between troopers, and up to 400 yards between lines. This gives an approximate depth and frontage, for the full charge formation, including mounted machine gun, support and medical units, of around 3+ kilometres frontage and a depth of over a kilometre. Tactical cavalry doctrine for a mounted charge detailed that charges should be conducted boot to boot, to crush receiving enemy underfoot, or to batter into a receiving cavalry formation. The difference in result (loosely) of using the artillery formation is obvious - the Light Brigade at Balaclava was mauled, whereas 4th Light Horse casualties were almost statistically irrelevant. The simple fact was that up until Beersheba, practicality and opportunity restricted all mounted units, regardless of nationality, to a mounted infantry function. In the months following Beersheba, all Dominion mounted units were issued the 1908 model cavalry sword, and this information was promoted when and where ever possible, which contributed to the psychological advantage generated by the Beersheba charge.

After the withdrawal of the Imperial cavalry to the Western Front, a cavalry division from India replaced them. This formation also included lancers, which were used to great effects in the 1918 campaigns, complementing the actual cavalry role of the remaining Dominion units.

Finally, I consider that the entire article is somewhat slanted away from Sir Harry Chauvel. Firstly, Allenby's decision to attempt the Beersheba operation was largely based on support from Chauvel, who essentially planned the actual operation, established the logistic and administrative support, and planned the actual movements and battle. Although Allenby was a vast improvement over Murray and Chetwoode's (and others) command by remote control, he was still so far out of touch that he had little to no control over the operation once it started. Chauvel, on the other hand, was far enough forward to observe the entire battle, and to receive both aerial recconnaisance reports, and landline updates from observer points. Although it may seem somewhat shallow, Chauvel's "Put Grant straight at it" command was not unusual, nor lacking in depth. The simple fact was that as a mounted body, the DMC had been operating together for 18 months plus, and the objective and intent was self-explanatory...take the town. Certainly, time was running short, and success had to be achieved before full darkness, which only gave half to a full hour from the commencement of the charge, but once the breakthrough was achieved the large advantage of the mounted units was the quality of troops and cohesion in chaotic circumstances, which had been proven time and again in the previous months. It is also worth pointing out that it was standard Desert Mounted doctrine to encircle in all offensive operations, for a number of reasons, primarily twofold, though...first, it denied the ability of the enemy to withdraw, retreat or reinforce, and second, as a psychological advantage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiddenGunman (talk • contribs) 08:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Battle of Beersheba (1917)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Beersheba (1917)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AnzacMDwd10.17":

• From Battle of Buqqar Ridge: Anzac Mounted Divisions War Diary October 1917 AWM4-1-60-20
• From Stalemate in Southern Palestine: Anzac Mounted Division War Diary October 1917 AWM4-1-60-20part1

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Will do. --Rskp (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Battalion names

There are several instances where the word London is used 2/13th London for example.
London is a place, see also London (disambiguation).
2/13th London does not make any sense its an abbreviation and not a very accurate one for the 2/13th Battalion, London Regiment, the largest ever British regiment.
It military terms especially in the First World War London was used for the 1st London Division, 2/1st London Division, 2nd London Division, 2/2nd London Division. Then there were also the divisions brigades 1st London Brigade, 2nd London 3rd London, 2/1st London Brigade, 2/2nd London, 2/3rd London, 3/1st London, 4th London, 5th London, 6th London, 2/4th London, 2/5th London, 2/6th London. Then there were the 89 battalions of the London Regiment so to call something the 2/13th London need clarifying as to what you mean.

On a separate note there still seems to be severe ownership problems with any article you work on. The correct name for all those battalions has now been added twice, I would remind you of B Class criteria 2 "Coverage and accuracy" using incorrect names for these battalions drops this article down to C Class. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Its not what I mean Jim Sweeney, its what the sources say. We are not talking about divisions, or brigades, not even regiments but what battalions of regiments are called in the text cited. We have been through this same argument on a number of other Sinai and Palestine Campaign articles. While I add names which are used in the sources I quote you change them to some other name which makes the article wrong. When I change it back your call it an ownership problem, when its a problem that you can't accept the names are used in the sources cited. Please stop your Wikipedia:disruptive editing. --Rskp (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jim here. There is no need to blindly follow a source when it comes to presentation style, that's just another excuse for poor writing. The way it was written was imprecise, and it is not hard to be specific so that our readers know what size unit is being referred to. Your accusations are just another way of avoiding actually discussing an issue. Anotherclown (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Battalions correct names added again with references - I would also point out that your own reference 199 [1] uses the same correct names. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Anotherclown, when have you not been in lockstep with Jim Sweeney over Sinai and Palestine campaign articles? So its necessary to write the 2nd Battalion of the 56th London Regiment instead of the 2/56 London? --Rskp (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well done you have just proved the point its not the 2nd Battalion of the 56th London Regiment but the 2/56th Battalion, London Regiment. Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Typical response Roslyn. How about actually addressing the point? Anotherclown (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Anotherclown, the expression "lock step" is found in the dictionary where there is no mention that it has any rude connotations [2]. It would have been nice if you could answer my question, "So its necessary to write the 2nd Battalion of the 56th London Regiment instead of the 2/56 London? " instead of launching a personal attack and accusing me of avoiding the point, when I simply asked a question. --Rskp (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Jim Sweeney 2/56th London could not, given the context within which the source was writing and within which the source is quoted in this article, stand for anything else. --Rskp (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Long, Long Trail The British Army of 1914-1918 - for family historians," to give this web site its full title, is given by Jim Sweeney as the source for the following information "Chetwode opened his advance XX Corps headquarters at 17:00 at el Buqqar, and a half-hour later the infantry approach marches began. The 74th Division advanced along the Tel el Fara-to-Beersheba road led by the 229th Brigade, with one brigade following to the north and another to the south of the road. The 60th (London) Division advanced from Abu Ghalyun, Bir el Esani and Rashid Bek in three brigade groups, the 181st Brigade (on the left) advanced north and south of the Wadi es Saba, while the 179th Brigade (on the right) advanced towards the Khalasa-to-Beersheba road. Their advance guard, the 2/13th Battalion, London Regiment," However the source quoted does not give any other information than that it was the 2nd 13th Battalion London Regiment. Falls the official British historian, and the real source of the information gives the 2/13th London to identify the battalion and the regiment. Jim Sweeney wants to identify the battalion as the 2/13th London Regiment. But it is a battalion which is being talked about. I think Jim Sweeney's added citation is misleading and the added "regiment" also equally misleading for general readers who will not be military specialists. What do others think? --Rskp (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No its the source for the correct battalion designations. Also Chris Baker of The Long Long Trail

• Was the chairman of the Western Front Association [3]
• Given over 1,000 talks on First World War [4]
• Web site cited in other publications [5]
• Web site cited in books [6] [7]
• Cited by Google scholar search [8]
• Web site recommended by Intute which confirms his membership of the University of Birmingham's Centre for First World War Studies. [9]
• Has had at least one article published in a journal [10]
• Published author - The Battle for Flanders: German Defeat on the Lys 1918 [11]
• Founder of Fourteen-Eighteen which provides research services for private clients, universities, broadcast media, museums, regimental associations and others who wish to locate, obtain and understand documents from the period of the First World War. [12]

His credentials stand up to any scrutiny. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

However you are quoting an oob designed for FAMILY HISTORIANS, which does not describe the campaign, but merely lists the names of units without giving citations so its not possible to know where Baker got the names. The names used by the sources which describes the action were correct at the time of publication. When you change the names of the units taking part in the action you call into question the integrity of the article. This is not a personal attack on you Jim Sweeney but on the edits you have made which changed the names of the units. --Rskp (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have cut all the citations to this dubious source which is not needed to support the addition of the words "battalion" and "regiment". --Rskp (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed?

Jim Sweeney has inserted citation needed tags which would require the duplication of the citations already in the text =

1. "This force was reorganised into two corps to hold the Gaza-to-Beersheba line: the XX Corps (16th and 54th Infantry Divisions with the 178th Infantry Regiment and the 3rd Cavalry Division), and the XXII Corps (3rd, 7th, and 53rd Infantry Divisions).[citation needed|date=August 2013|The reference is given at the end of the next sentence, its Erickson 2001 p. 163] By July, the Ottoman force defending the Gaza-to-Beersheba line had increased to 151,742 rifles, 354 machine guns and 330 artillery guns.ref name="Erickson 2001 p. 163">Erickson 2001 p. 163ref"

And

1. "Most of Allenby's infantry were Territorials mobilised at the outbreak of the war, with many (if not all) battalions containing regular-army officers and NCOs.[citation needed|date=August 2013 |see Erickson 2007 pp. 11-12] A number of the divisions had fought the Ottoman Army on Gallipoli and at Salonika in Greece. The 52nd (Lowland) Division had served at Cape Helles, and the 54th (East Anglian) Division fought at Suvla Bay on Gallipoli (in the front line at Gaza) while the 53rd (Welsh) Division also fought at Suvla Bay. The 60th (London) Division had fought on the Western Front [citation needed|date=August 2013|see Erickson 2007 pp. 11-12] and at Salonika. The 74th (Yeomanry) Division had recently been formed from 18 under–strength yeomanry regiments which had fought (dismounted) at Gallipoli. The 10th (Irish) Division, a New Army (K1) division, had also fought at Suvla Bay and Salonika. The light-horse and mounted rifle brigades in the Anzac and Australian Mounted Divisions had fought (dismounted) on Gallipoli.refErickson 2007 pp. 111–12ref

This would mean the same citation quoted twice in the first instance and three times in the second, straight after one another. --Rskp (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes its not clear from the writing that the same reference is for the whole paragraph or several sentences. It would have been much easier to use ref name to add them then to procrastinate here. For example the 60th Division never fought any battle on the western front before going to Salonika. The problem might be that your using a book on the Ottoman Army as a reference for the British Army. Hardly expert opinion Erickson actually says ALL OF THE BATTALIONS HAD A SPRINKLING OF REGULAR OFFICERS AND NCOS. Page 104 quite a difference from what you wrote. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Lets be quite clear, Jim Sweeney. You are saying that every sentence must be referenced. Well that's certainly new. Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dubious edits

Jim Sweeney has changed the names of some battles during his [13] edit. He changed from capital B Battle of Passchendaele to small b battle of Passchendaele, capital F First capital B Battle of Gaza to small letter f first small letter b battle of Gaza, capital S Second capital B Battle of Gaza to small s second small b battle of Gaza and capital R Raid on the Suez Canal to small r raid on the Suez Canal. The edit is only accompanied by the generic (Copyedit (minor)). What would be the purpose of such edits? --Rskp (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney has also added hyphens to such words as "counterattack" and "north, northwest", which the Guild copyeditor had been happy to leave as they were. Can someone explain why these edits were made? If not, they should be undone. --Rskp (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Camel Corps

There seems to be a problem with an editor keep changing the name of this unit, with the edit summery It was never a corps [14] If they mean it was never an army corps then that is correct but no one is saying it was. Its name was the Imperial Camel Corps, who says so?

1. Well the units memorial in London, inscribed "To the glorious and immortal memory of the officers, NCO‘s and men of the Imperial Camel Corps, British, Australian, New Zealand, Indian, who fell in action or died of wounds and disease in Egypt, Sinai and Palestine, 1916 -1917-1918." [15]
2. The Australian War Memorial "The Imperial Camel Corps (ICC) was formed in January 1916..."[16]
3. New Zealand History online "The Imperial Camel Corps, which included two New Zealand companies, played a vital role in the Sinai and Palestine campaigns"[17]
4. Digger History "Sgt Frederick Mercier - Imperial Camel Corps" [18]
5. Author John Robertson - Book With the Cameliers in Palestine "The Imperial Camel Corps was a cosmopolitan body of troops that gradually grew into a brigade " [19]
6. Imperial War Museum IMPERIAL CAMEL CORPS COLLECTION [20]
7. National Army Museum The Imperial Camel Corps, made up of British, Indian, Australian and New Zealand troops, was raised for action in the Middle East.[21]
8. Author Geoffrey Inchbald - Book The Imperial Camel Corps [22]
9. Author Frank Reid - Book The Fighting Cameliers - The Exploits of the Imperial Camel Corps in the Desert And Palestine Campaign of the Great War [23]
10. Author Mike Chappel - Book The British Army in World War I - An Imperial Camel Corps was formed in Egypt... [24]

I suggest if you insist this unit did not have the word corps in its title you gain a consensus for the change. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This brigade was never a corps, it was often attached to a corps but that was the nearest it came. The Wikipedia article about the brigade is happy with Imperial Camel Brigade and other sources concerned with accuracy. --Rskp (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You have not understood the post no one has ever said this was an army corps - but the units name was the Imperial Camel Corps as evidenced by the above links. Or is everyone else wrong and only you right. The Imperial Camel Brigade is a redirect to the unit article the title of which is the Imperial Camel Corps. Also do not amend other users posts. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you Jim Sweeney - Its NOT ME but the sources quoted and Wikipedia which call the unit the Imperial Camel Brigade. Yes you are quite right "Corps" has been widely used and so you have both names acknowledged in the Wikipedia links, BUT IT NEVER WAS A CORPS. So why are you so passionate about this little word? --Rskp (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As you can see above the sources use Corps. Again no one has ever said it was an army corps. It only acknowledged in WP by yourself using the name. Once again do not amend other users posts.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Its entirely up to you. If you don't make any more personal attacks I will not amend your posts. How's that? --Rskp (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No thats not acceptable see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines there has been no pers attack made.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Third Battle of Gaza

According to the current lead: "The Battle of Beersheba (Turkish: Birüssebi Savaşı, German: Kriegerdenkmal Be'er Scheva; also known as the Third Battle of Gaza)..." Is it correct to say Beersheba was also known as the Third Battle of Gaza? This doesn't seem right. If it is why do we have a separate article for that event? Indeed according to that article "The Third Battle of Gaza was fought during the night of 1/2 November 1917 after the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) victory at the Battle of Beersheba ended the Stalemate in Southern Palestine..." So which is it? Anotherclown (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusingly, some historians have in the past referred to the Battle of Beersheba as the Third Battle of Gaza. --Rskp (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all confusing just needs some understanding of military matters. Beersheba was the first phase of the battle of Gaza. Which did not just involve the city of Gaza but the breaking of the Gaza-Beersheba defence line. Once Beersheba was taken the intention was to roll up the rest of the line towards Gaza. That's why the bombardment of Gaza started prior to this battle, in part to draw attention away from the Turkish left. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• No Jim Sweeney Beersheba was the first phase of the Jaffa-Jerusalem offensive. By the way it was the Ottoman army in 1917. Turkey did not come into existence until after the war was over. --Rskp (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

So shouldn't the lead reflect that the Beersheba battle was the first stage of Third Gaza? It is confusing as it presently stands; I've just come off the 12th Light Horse page where Rskp appears to be saying they are two separate battles and I find that the first sentence of this article says they are the one and the same. Zawed (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• No Zawed, you have been misinformed by Jim Sweeney. Gaza and Beersheba were and still are 30 miles apart, and the corps which fought at Gaza was entirely different to the two corps which fought at Beersheba, none of whom had any part in the inconclusive Gaza fighting. So there is no overlap one battle was not part of the other. Gaza was merely a faint to keep the enemy guessing where the next attack would come. Jerusalem was being threatened by the Battle of Tel el Khuweilfe in the southern Judean Hills which began on 1 November and continued until 7/8 November. They were fighting for the road north from Beersheba towards Bethlehem directly threatening Jeruslaem, but the major EEF infantry attack came at the Battle of Hareira and Sheria in the centre half way between Gaza and Beersheba on 6 November on the maritime plain. --Rskp (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I see the lead has been revised now with an explanatory note. That works for me. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry for being so crab-like I had been preoccupied. Thanks for pointing out the problem. --Rskp (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lack of understanding on military operations here I believe, but have it your own way.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Bias problem

Extended content
Typical lazy Wikipedia hack job.

Article only tells British side (and even calls the Turks the "enemy"). Mostly a collection of copy and pasted text and quotes rather than a serious attempt to recount battle. Same with most of the articles in the SNP campaign. Is this what passes for a good article these days? No wonder your site has no credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.227.39.120 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As an english speaking researcher I have been limited to sources available in that language. I hope you will conduct your own research and when you find the information you seek, add it to this article. All the mentions of 'Turkey' and 'Turks' are in direct quotes and the few mentions of 'enemy' were for clarity and to avoid repetition, as they occur shortly after 'Ottoman soldiers.' I have cut the bias tag because the anonymous IP editor has not raised any other specific examples which might substantiate the addition of the tag. --Rskp (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove the first phrase of the IP's post, using the Remove Personal Attack tag but this has been reverted a number of times by Anotherclown, who claims that advice must be sort before adding this tag. [25] While I understand that Anotherclown is not remotely worried by the phrase, I do not hold the same view and wish it removed, but as Anotherclown has threatened me with the WP:3RR I have desisted. [26] --Rskp (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well at least you're prepared to move on I guess... Like I said if you think it should be removed ask someone who is not involved to review the comment and I'd be more than happy for this to occur. Incidentally, 54.227.39.120 said worse things to me on my talk page (so it was personal) and I couldn't care less. Anyway "threat" is a bit off, like I said I actually reminded you before you breeched 3RR - it could have gone quite differently and ended up at ANI but what would be the point of that? Probably best to focus on the issues that have been raised and not rise to some perceived rudeness (good advice for me too). Anotherclown (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say I have to ask the opinion of someone else, when it is I who think it was a personal attack, and most certainly rude into the bargain? --Rskp (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No idea if it does to be honest, but you seem to have misunderstood my point at any rate. I suggested getting someone else to review 54's cmt because you and I disagreed on whether they constituted a personal attack, and you had already breeched 3RR and that as a result if you continued to make those edits you could face a block. Logical alternatives were 1) move on, 2) go to ANI, or 3) get someone who is not involved in the conversation to give their opinion. Regardless, I take issue with you overzealously slapping an RPA tag on any criticism because it allows you to marginalize otherwise legitimate points as most editors will see the tag and then assume that the cmt itself is suspect. Doesn't seem like acting in good faith for you to place the tag - that should be done by a neutral third party in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And how would that neutral third party be alerted to the question? I note however, that Anotherclown would be in breech of the WP:3RR first, was it not for a timely edit from Jim Sweeney, who Anotherclown assures me saved the day for him, here [27]. The points made by the IP whether legitimate or not, have been coloured by the phrase which begins that editor's contributions. And thanks to Anotherclown with Jim Sweeney's help, continues to be available despite my STRONG PROTEST. --Rskp (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So you did not bother to take up any of the suggestions? Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

To set the record straight another user breeched 3 RR, not I, and I raised that issue with her on her talk page IAW policy. I wasn't in breech of 3 RR because I did not revert again - not because I was "saved" by another editor. Suggest if that editor respected the rules of conduct we wouldn't have got to that point in the first place. Anotherclown (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

yeomanry

During the Battle of Beersheba, there were Yeomanry infantry and Yeomanry cavalry units involved in the fighting. The yeomanry cavalry brigades were in the Yeomanry Mounted Division along with two yeomanry cavalry brigades; the 5th Mounted Brigade in the Australian Mounted Division and the 7th Mounted Brigade which was attached to Desert Mounted Corps. Meanwhile, the 75th Division of yeomanry infantry, served in the XX Corps. Therefore it is necessary in this article to clearly identify which type of yeomanry unit is being referred to. --Rskp (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong there is no such thing as yeomanry cavalry or infantry. Yeomanry are yeomanry those in the 74th (Yeomanry) Division, not the 75th Division, who used to be yeomanry had been converted into infantry. Serving in infantry battalions not yeomanry regiments. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct, in that yeomanry's origins were exclusively as mounted troops. "Yeomanry cavalry" is therefore a horrible tautology. "Yeomanry infantry" is also incorrect. "Dismounted yeomanry" is the correct term for yeomanry deprived of their horses. HLGallon (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but this article is not about the origins of the units. In this battle yeomanry fought as infantry and yeomanry fought as cavalry. The problem here is, how to clearly identify the yeomanry who fought as cavalry and the yeomanry who fought as infantry? Military specialists might see a tautology but the average reader may not. Would it be possible to add a note about this problem with a source? --Rskp (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Dismounted yeomanry" sounds fine to me, or "yeomanry fighting as infantry" perhaps? Never "yeomanry cavalry" or "yeomanry infantry". Anotherclown (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman casualties omitted

At the moment the article doesn't seem to provide a figure for Ottoman casualties during the battle, just wondering if anyone is aware of a source which contains this information? I recall seeing a figure in my readings over the last few years, but can't remember where (so obviously not helpful). As part of a Google search I did find one estimate of 500 dead here [28], although not sure if this is a reliable source. Fairly sure some sort of estimate would be / is available and believe they need to be included for the sake of completeness. I'm going to keep looking and see what I come up with but don't have access to my books or a library at the moment. Anotherclown (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Daley (2009) in Beersheba: A Journey Through Australia's Forgotten War, p. 141 [29] there is a monument in the Beersheba cemetery which lists Ottoman dead as 298 (although the source states that is improbably low). Fits the bill of a reliable source though. Anotherclown (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Grainger (2006) in The Battle for Palestine 1917 p. 121 [30] states: "Nearly 2,000 Turks were prisioners, and almost half that number were killed or wounded."

Anyone have any thoughts on the best way to include these figures (or on any other sources available)? Anotherclown (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Further source here (although its difficult to make out as I only have snippet view): The Empire at War - Volume 5, p. 113 [31] "Over 2,000 prisoners had been captured, and about 500 Turkish dead were found on the battle-field." Anotherclown (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyway I need to be somewhere else so I can't look for anymore, google search string is here [32] and I imagine it could yield more sources. Anotherclown (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections I have added something now. Of course I'm happy to discuss if other editors feel this could be done differently. Anotherclown (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your interest in this article Anotherclown. Unfortunately I've had to cut the Ottoman killed or wounded figure from the infobox as you don't provide a source and that number is not mentioned in the article. --Rskp (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It was already in the article, I've now added the reference to the infobox (although none of your other figures are cited). Anotherclown (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that Anotherclown. I haven't cited the other figures because they are mentioned in the article, although the wounded have been added together to give a total in the infobox. --Rskp (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

British Empire

Yes, there was such a legal entity as the British Empire. It was legally declared in the Statute in Restraint of Appeals of 1533. No one in 1917 would have doubted that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was part of the British Empire. While the UK and Australia were not quite and not quite yet on the same level in the Empire in 1917, it is wrong to portray the Dominions as under the United Kingdom, which had no control over them. So the agreed layout of the infobox works best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Beersheba (1917). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110316151433/http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1454 to http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1454
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110316151433/http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1454 to http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1454
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321175713/https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1338 to http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1338

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Timing

The battle of Beersheba occurred after the Germans offered the best peace terms in history at the end of 1916. They stated that all belligerents should take their armies and weapons and return to their pre-war borders. The Germans, who were the last to enter the war did not claim reparations. British Zionists (Balfour agreement) restarted the war in return for Britain seizing Palestine and giving it to them.

Is this subject taboo? The 1916 peace offer was not mentioned in the competent, honest and impartial mainstream media anywhere.

Significance

I'm a bit surprised this is rated as a "good article" - it has virtually nothing on the enduring significance of the battle. I think at least two aspects should be mentioned: (a) the perceived theological significance, that there is a line of thought in some Christian circles that it was part of the fulfilment of biblical prophecy[33] (b) the significance in Australian history - it has been called "Australia's first big achievement on the world stage". StAnselm (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

1.129.107.139 (talk)The significance of the battle is that its purpose was to seize Palestine from the Turks so that Palestine could be presented to the Zionists who were promised it in return for helping Britain win the war (by involving America in the war). Within America Zionists blackmailed President Wilson regarding his affair with the wife of another Princeton professor. The blackmail resulted in Pres. Wilson declaring war against Germany, breaking his promise to keep America out of the European war. Research 'Sussex', 'Untermeyer'.

The war that started with the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian emperor ended in 1916 when the Germans offered peace. From 1917 onwards, the war was fought to give the Zionists Palestine. After almost five million fresh US troops defeated the Germans for the Zionists the Germans were betrayed by Wilson's 14 point peace program and, in contrast to the generous German 1916 peace offer, the tricked Germans were rewarded with the Versailles treaties, the worst impositions in history. r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.107.139 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Beersheba (1917). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110811081532/http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/ to http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040215021116/http://www.lighthorse.org.au/histbatt/beersheba.htm to http://www.lighthorse.org.au/histbatt/beersheba.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Biased rhetoric

It is evident from the introductory paragraphs that this article is unbalanced. It favors the British side and gives little place for the Ottoman narrative.

Do we not have enough resources from the Ottoman side? Of course we do. The problem is bias, which is natural for an English medium I guess. I am not sure if it's fixable. Just don't claim to be neutral then. 46.31.112.213 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

As an Englishman, I would say the article is biased to an Australian point of view personally; I mean there's a quote in it that says the battle was Australian-led, which is absolutely untrue.

Unfortunately this is the problem with user edited media. All I can suggest is that you find and add some sources yourself. Alooulla (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That quote is immediately followed by "The statement was controversial amongst many, because Beersheba was also a British-led battle.", which both reports what was written and also points out the bias. This section is balanced. 211.30.56.170 (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it wasn't balanced, and I have reverted the British-led statement as unsourced. We have a sourced statement from an actual (Australian) historian saying it was Australian-led. That's just his opinion/assessment, of course, and if we can find a reliable source diagreeing with it, we should add that in. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you give examples of the biased wording? Maybe a few of the phrases or sentences you see as biased? 211.30.56.170 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)