Talk:Battle of Sharon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Battle of Sharon (1918))
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Battle of Sharon has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 11, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
January 9, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Copy edit[edit]

HLGallon, This is a very new article which has only just been moved out of my userspace, because construction was more or less complete. There is still a lot of work to be done before it will be ready to request a copyedit. Please don't bother continuing your copyedit, at this stage. Thank you. --Rskp (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. You might consider putting an {{inuse}} template at the head of the article, to deter other busybodies. HLGallon (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your interest. Its just that I'm trying to get the Battle of Nablus into some sort of shape at the moment. --Rskp (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


Upon request, took a run through this. Comments:

  • Mention how many planes the various air groups had and their weapons, particularly on the German/Ottoman side. Include photos of the various craft.
  • Given that various subordinate actions have separate names (Battle Of Tulkarm) I'm not sure why the headings are things like "Ottoman line breached".
  • A summary comparison of the deployed forces would be great. O/G had x thousand men versus the Allies y thousand, etc.
  • Why the focus on Patrick M. Hamilton. Was he the first case?
Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi thanks very much for your time and effort copyediting this article. This is in fact the first copyedit; another editor started copyediting it in April, months before a request was made and months before the article was anywhere near ready, for a copyedit.

I see that you have changed the citations so that some of the page numbers appears in the article, but the name of the source is in the citation list while others have been left as they were, and you have grouped all Falls refs together but not others. I've never seen this before and I don't understand what you have done or why. Can you please undo it? --Rskp (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What is this unit?[edit]

What is the "the British Empire infantry corps" mentioned in the first paragraph? Surely it had a number? Bazuz (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks for that. Its been added. --Rskp (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification requested by Jim Sweeney[edit]

Indian infantry regiments were formed on ethnic lines each company from a different community, only one of which would have Hindi as the language. So the other three spoke different languages. Did the other officers speak the language of their company?

Jim Sweeney, this information is not contained in the source cited. I hope you will carry out your own research to prove your assumptions and improve this article. --Rskp (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
While true this statement is misleading and gives undue weight to the presumption that they could not converse with their troops. As we do not know if they could not speak the other Indian languages it would be better to leave it out. It really adds nothing to the battle article.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Your suggestion that this quote, which merely reflects the source cited, is misleading is based on your own personal assumption/presumption. Unless you have research to back up your opinion; in which case please add it to the article. Otherwise, stop wasting my time. --Rskp (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
How is discussion wasting your time - if you don't want to respond leave it alone.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Reading around it seems that companies were organised on cultural/religious lines but with Urdu used for communication. The lack of Hindi-Urdu speakers was due to losses replaced by officers with no Indian experience. Without noting whether this lack of communication , or experience of the officiers, had an effect or not on the operations, there seems little point in noting it in isolation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
While your speculations, GraemeLeggett, once more in support of Jim Sweeney's unique position of cutting information, are interesting, the lack of Hindustani speakers at this particular time was due, not to attrition, but to the massive dislocation and reorganisation which took place when almost all the British infantry was sent to the western front. These British Indian Army battalions were newly arrived from the western front. The lack of Hindustani speaking officers was not due, as you claim, to losses. They had never been needed before the British Indian Army battalions arrived. Why they didn't come with the battalions is a question which hopefully will be answered in the future, but clearly from the quote they didn't. The information is apposite in this section of the article as these newly reformed battalions and divisions were low on Hindustani speakers which could have had an impact on subsequent operations. At this distance and with so little detail of the first two days' fighting in the Battle of Sharon, this information should remain in this article for others to build on. --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The presumption is that the officers could not converse with their troops not being able to speak Hindustani. If this is the case how did they give even the simplest of orders, it obviously did not hamper operations as they fought and won almost every battle they were involved in. Of course officers were needed in the battalions before arriving in Palestine. They all had British officers in command of battalions and company's. These divisions had previously fought on the Western Front and in Mesopotamia suffering losses. The quote is trivia at most and adds nothing to the battle article and I would go as far to say its misleading.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not a case of cutting information, its a case (at the moment) of adding information that breaks the narrative flow. Saying that Indian units were sent to Palestine but not with officers that spoke the language immediately invites questions such as "Is it important?" "did it make a difference to the battle? "Was something done to work around the problem?" but does not answer the questions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No, GraemeLeggett it is a case of cutting information which has been in the article for some considerable time. You are absolutely right, however that the quote does not answer all the questions, it raises. But it may stimulate another editor, who is interested in adding information, to contribute something more. --Rskp (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The narrative flow is not interrupted because this information regarding language difficulties comes at the end of a subsection. --Rskp (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


Jim Sweeney is limiting this article to one link in the intro and one in the narrative. In a short article that might be ok but to cut all links after only two, in a long and involved article like this is not being helpful to general readers. --Rskp (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney is not see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking
Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Where on the link provided, does it state how many links, should be in an article? --Rskp (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Right. --Rskp (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Western Front photo[edit]

Not sure if its misleading to have a photo from the Western Front in this article? --Rskp (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest this image is on the Western Front. No location is given by the AWM.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The winter woolies indicate the location is not in the Sinai or Palestine. --Rskp (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
What hes wearing is not evidence of where the photograph was taken. Anyone who has been to the region you would know how cold it can get.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 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." Desert Mounted Corps was not armed with swords in 1917.
  • Clearly Forsyth was not a member of Desert Mounted Corps, 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 from Desert Mounted Corps and is therefore not relevant to this article. --Rskp (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


The AIF was armed with Lee-Enfield rifles and mounted troops with Hotchkiss and Vickers machine guns. To suggest they only had swords and bayonets is ridiculous. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney's assertion is ridiculous. No one is suggesting they didn't have rifles; but the source doesn't mention rifles. --Rskp (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The text reads The 522 troopers in each regiment, were armed with swords and bayonets. that suggests they were not armed with anything other than swords or bayonets. As weapons are not given for the other British/German/Ottoman formations and by your own admission the sources are not comprehensive better to leave it out. Leads to more questions than answers.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney's assertion is ridiculous. No one is suggesting they didn't have rifles; but the source doesn't mention rifles.--Rskp (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

10th Division orbat for Meggido battles[edit]

The 10th Division only had three British battalion not four as stated in the text.

29th Brigade
1st Prince of Wales's Leinster Regiment, 1/54th Sikhs (Frontier Force), 1/101st Grenadiers, 2/151st Indian Infantry
30th Brigade
1st Royal Irish Regiment, 38th Dogras, 46th Punjabis, 1st Kashmir Imperial Service Infantry
31st Brigade
2nd Royal Irish Fusiliers, 2/42nd Deoli Regiment, 74th Punjabis, 2/101st Grenadiers
Its also contradicted in the main article Battle of Megiddo (1918) which states they were the same as the other British divisions. Three British and nine Indian battalions in the division. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
That's great. What are the sources? --Rskp (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Just added them up the Leinster Regiment, the Grenadiers, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Royal Irish Fusiliers - that's four. --Rskp (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Better look again thats three one of thems an Indian regiment Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mounted division totals[edit]

Each division of approximately 3,500 mounted men, was made up of three brigades and each brigade composed of three regiments. That's only 389 men in each regiment, do you mean per brigade?

Cavalry brigade in numbers in 1914
Brigade HQ 7/47 officers/men
1st Regiment 26/523
2nd Regiment 26/523
3rd Regiment 26/523
RHA 19/651
ASC 31/711
Signals 10/197
Field Amb 6/118
Thats 163/3291 officers/men in a brigade add another 80-100 for the mg squadron equals 3,554 troops.Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
They were running out of men by September 1918. The Australian referenda had failed and volunteer reinforcements were not enough to keep numbers up to establishment levels. Only the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade was kept up to establishment by conscription. By the way its not me who is providing these figures; its the sources quoted. --Rskp (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Its all the divisions not just Australian, I have taken the number out as above it looks like a typo in the source used, other sources are available to contradict it, seems division was used instead of brigade, "approximately 3,500" to an authorised brigade establishment of 3,454+ would suggest so. It also says "The 522 troopers in each regiment" for the ALH which also supports the above figures. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. --Rskp (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Just did a double check and found -

War establishment of a Light Horse Brigade total including staff, regiments, artillery engineers ASC AMC and half a field hospital 2,158 1,743 in three regiments + 181 artillery + 23 staff total 134 in a Squadron [Mounted Service Manual MT 1902 p.10] 1,743 x 3 brigades in a division = 4,229 war establishment of fighting units making 3,500 = one division a reasonable figure. --Rskp (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't know how you come to that conclusion unless the Australian regiments were well under strength and there is no evidence of that. In fact the had just increased the number of regiments when forming the 5th LH Brigade, if they were understrength they would not have created a new formation. Then there is no evidence at all that the British/Indian brigades were under strength. You are talking about all three divisions not just the Australian one.Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again, its not me but the sources which are giving this information. The 5th LHB was formed after the partial disbandment of the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade. --Rskp (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
But you are using a source for the ALH and saying its the same for 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Not me Jim Sweeney - the source is saying there were 3,500 in the divisions or something along those lines. Take it up with DiMarco if you must. But by this stage of the war numbers were badly affected by the stiff fighting on the western front and the lack of reinforcements. --Rskp (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
According to here [1] there were about 7,000 men in the Australian Mounted Division. The ration strength [2] for the AMD 7 September 1918, is 359 officers and 6,807 other ranks. On 14 September its 355 officers and 6,851 other ranks. Then there is the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions to add, which going by the AMD example must come to around 18,000 men in the three divisions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Then there is this With Chauvel’s Desert Mounted Corps command increased to four divisions, Allenby exgaged with much happy anticipation in the preparation of the grand scheme, which, giving full scope to his 30,000 horsemen, was to bring the campaign to its sweeping and dramatic conclusion.
  • Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918 - Volume Vol7, Volume VII – The Australian Imperial Force in Sinai and Palestine, 1914–1918 (10th edition, 1941), Author: H S Gullett SINAI AND PALESTINE CHAPTER XXXVIII RE-ORGANISATION AND PREPARATION page 654 [3] Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Gullett was a journalist before he took on the job of writing the official Australian history of the campaign. While he is very good on descriptions of landscapes that he saw for himself he is also very good on the broad brush. The ration strength on 14 September is more compelling. Thanks for that. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Machine Gun Corps[edit]

According to Falls Vol. 2 p. 688 only No. 11 and 12 Light Armoured Motor Batteries and Nos 1 and 7 Light Car Patrols formed the Machine Gun Corps. What is the source for Jim Sweeney's claim that "all british machine gun sqdns and coys came from the MGC." Does this mean that the machine gun squadrons were not part of the brigades of DMC but part of the Machine Gun Corps? --Rskp (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Was the Machine Gun Corps a British entity? --Rskp (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Indian Expeditionary Force E[edit]

The 4th and 5th Divisions were formed in Palestine from British Indian Army units sent from France and British Yeomanry already in the EEF. See Falls oobs for the EEF of October 1917 and September 1918. --Rskp (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No they were the 1st and 2nd Indian Cavalry Divisions serving in France and renumbered in November 1916, so as not to be confused with the 1st 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Divisions. They were then disbanded, the British regiments remained in France and the divisions were reformed in Egypt with yeomanry regiments replacing the regular British regiments. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Just reading some more, seems they were 4th and 5th Divisions from November 1916. Then disbanded sent to Egypt and at first reformed as the 1st and 2nd Mounted Divisions and later renumbered the 4th and 5th Cavalry as before. However it does not say when they were renumbered 4th and 5th. To prevent it getting confusing I suggest its better to miss out the 1st and 2nd Mounted as they never fought as such and it could only have been for a short period in time. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not about what the divisions were called but who served in them in 1918 and the British battalions were already in Palestine before the British Indian Army units arrived to form these two divisions. The wikipedia article looks very strange when force D and force F were both formed in 1914 and it claims force E was formed many years later. I think the reference to this force should be dropped as it appears to be only relevant to the names of the divisions which by this stage of the war were formed from completely different units. --Rskp (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Fail to see your point Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see you have cut the reference to E force. --Rskp (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

British Indian Army officers[edit]

Potential British Indian Army officers attended the Indian staff college at Quetta (before joining their regiments) after successfully completing the course they were commissioned in the British Indian Army not the British Army. There were normally 12 officers per regiment six in staff positions (CO, 2IC, MO, QM, Adjutant and assistant), four company commanders and two wing commanders (two company's to a wing). Because of the shortage of officers those regiments that remained in India only had ten officers. Platoons were commanded by Viceroy's commissioned officers, British officers commanded the companies (which were smaller than British ones) and above. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What is your point Jim Sweeney? The problem of linguistics arose when the British Army infantry battalions which remained in Palestine when their colleagues went to fight in France reformed their old divisions with British Indian Army units but the British junior officers which remained in Palestine could not speak Hundustani as you would expect; their never having fought in India. --Rskp (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No British officers served with Indian battalions that were not part of the British Indian Army. No British officers remained behind, to serve in the Indian battalions. I have changed the text to quote the book which is some what different to what was portrayed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
On what do you base these assertions? --Rskp (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The Military in British India: The Development of British Land Forces in South Asia, 1600-1947 - Officer cadets trained at RMAS and then were commissioned into the Indian Army, this was before the establishment of the Indian RMA. However the same can not be said of Indian Army officers, 500 were loaned to the British Army at the start of the war, the 240 survivors were returned to the Indian Army soon afterwards. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I've been looking at Orders of Battle; comparing the EEF oob October 1917 with the EEF oob September 1918. Three out of every four battalions were sent to France; the remaining battalion was reinforced with British Indian Army battalions. For example in September 1918, the 10th Division had the 1/Leinster Regiment in the 29th Brigade, the 1/R. Irish Regiment in the 30th Brigade and the 2/R. Irish Fusiliers in the 31st Brigade; the other three battalions in each of the three brigades were British Indian Army. In October 1917 the 10th (Irish) Division had the 1/Leinster Regiment in the 29th Brigade, the 1/R. Irish Regiment in the 30th Brigade and the 2/R. Irish Fusiliers in the 31st Brigade the other three battalions in each of the three brigades were Irish; they were sent to France. A similar thing happened in the cavalry. This was in accordance with the War Office condition for reinforcement of the EEF that no British troops be sent away from the Western Front. See Sinai and Palestine Campaign#Westerners versus Easterners "The French imposed an important qualification on the Joint Note; that no British troops in France could be deployed to the Egyptian Expeditionary Force." [Woodward p. 162]--Rskp (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It has occurred to me that you are talking about the 3rd (Lahore) and 7th (Meerut) Divisions which were indeed fully British Indian Army units transferred from the Mesopotamian campaign, while I'm concerned with the 10th, 53rd, 60th and 75th Divisions which left behind one battalion from each brigade to reform with the British Indian Army units transferred from France. The EEF reorganisation subsection needs to reflect this. Jim Sweeney, can you see my point? --Rskp (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The only units that arrived from France were the two cavalry divisions. The 3rd and 7th Indian arrived complete from Mesopotamia. At the same time some new Indian battalions were raised from new troops and 60 experienced company's also transferred from the Mesopotamia Campaign, forming 15 battalions, The Indian Army in the Two World Wars p.129.

Examining the division orbat you can see which were the newly formed battalions.

That's 22 new Indian battalions out of 39 (two of the 39 being Imperial Service), with 60 experienced companies divided among them, it only leaves 28 newly formed company's or seven complete battalions. Also note three battalions or 12 company's were the divisional pioneers not really fighting troops, used for digging trenches etc. All these battalions had British Indian Army officers only, even though they were British they were still commissioned in the Indian Army not the British Army. The 11 battalions of Indian Infantry regiments were the ones formed from existing company's being transferred. For example the 2/151st Indian Infantry (10th Division, 29th Brigade) was formed from one company each from the 51st, 53rd, 54th Sikhs and the 56th Punjabi Rifles. The 101st Grenadiers divided in two forming two battalions each with two experienced and two new company's. The Indian Army in the Two World Wars pp. 129, 173,174. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I am writing up the new regiments. 22 battalions were improvised by taking complete companies from existing battalions in Mesopotamia and Palestine:
150th Infantry (3 battalions)
151st Sikh Infantry (3) (3rd Battalion was designated 151st Punjabi Rifles)
152nd Punjabis (3)
153rd Punjabis (3) (3rd Battalion was designated 153rd Rifles)
154th Infantry (3)
155th Pioneers (2)
156th Infantry (1)
11th Gurkha Rifles (4)
13 of these were assigned to the 10th, 53rd, 60th and 75th Divisions; the remaining 9 were transferred from Mesopotamia to India. Some of these later took part in the Third Anglo-Afghan War e.g. 1/11GR, 2/11GR and 3/11GR. Hamish59 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


In the info box United Kingdom Edmund Allenby[clarification needed]

Allenby was the commander of the EEF and it was his corps which fought the battle following his plans. --Rskp (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

He was the army commander did he have direct control of the battle or not? Using that example we can just as easily add the CIGS, Prime Minister and the King. The CIGS as it was also their corps and Allenby was working under their orders. It was a corps battle so only the corps commander should be listed.

For example see the FA class articles Battle of Verrières Ridge Battle of Vimy Ridge. The Canadian Army was under the command of Montgomery (Verrieres) and Haig (Vimy) but there not listed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Allenby planned the battles; he was there in his headquarters during the battle and he was commander in chief of the EEF. CIGS, the Prime Minister and the King were in England - a long way away - just as well they were not commanders in chief. This battle was part of Megiddo a three and three quarters corps battle. Your comparison with the Western Front battles is silly. The whole Sinai and Palestine Campaign does not compare with even a small part of the Western Front campaigns. All the articles you have renamed from Actions to Battles would need to go back to actions if you are serious about the WF comparison. --Rskp (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting content[edit]

The 75th Division started getting Indian reinforcements in 1917 as is references can you stop deleting it.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is about units leaving Palestine and going TO the western front and Jim Sweeney keeps adding information about ARRIVALS. These are two separate issues which cannot be dealt with in the same sentence. --Rskp (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Populations living on the battlefields[edit]

The Populations living on the battlefields section have no bearing on the fighting or conduct of this battle and is just padding. Can you supply a good reason why this section should not be deleted.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The information which has been cut from the article is added here so that readers can make up their own minds. --Rskp (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • A quick read of the articles in which "Populations living on the battlefields" appears will show that none of them describes one engagement. They are ALL about a series of operations and as the Populations living on the battlefieldS subsections appear in the BACKGROUND of all these OVERVIEW articles they are wholly appropriate. All these overview articles have links to articles which DO describe the fighting and the conduct of a battle but DO NOT have descriptions of the populations living on the battlefields and therefore follow Jim Sweeney's dictates. --Rskp (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
In order for an article to be awarded GA it must be "broad in its coverage." This information regarding the population living on the battlefield, is necessary to fulfill the criteria of broad coverage. --Rskp (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The criteria is It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): The population of the battlefield is off focus, they had no bearing on the battle neither helping or hindering either side. Using your same rational why is there not a section of flora and fauna. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Those criteria seem to rule out going into content on the local inhabitants if they are not active participants in the event. Now, a piece on the terrain might be pertinent.... GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
In the case of the Battle of Nablus the GA reviewer awarded the article GA status with this aspect of the article intact. So I don't see any reason to cut it before a GA reviewer has the chance to assess the whole article. You probably don't realise what a large stretch of country was fought over during this battle. See subsection 'Front line' for an overview of the terrain. --Rskp (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The Talk:Battle of Nablus (1918)/GA1 does not mention the population either way. The reviewer Pyrotec has been invited to comment. Having been there I know exactly how small the area of these battles is. But that have no bearing on the population who as above played no part in the battle. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself Jim Sweeney. Unless you have something new to say, I consider this discussion closed. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I copy edited this article just before its GAN and thus have it and its TP watch listed. I highly doubt the removal of a largely unrelated and generally digressive section in this article will affect its GA status. It's not about interest, or lack thereof, which is the point, it's relevance. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Text transferred from Talk:Battle of Nablus (1918) to consolidate on one page. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Blackmane for your work. However you did not carry out the GA review and your comments should be seen in that light. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
If you consider this discussion "now closed" the consensus is 3-1 to remove the section.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
{(Personal attack removed)
(Personal attack removed)to resort to personal attacks.Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This is not a personal attack on you Jim Sweeney but on your editing of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, some of which has been fantastic and some, well what do you think? --Rskp (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment on content not on editors - that is a personal attack. Even taking away my opinion consensus is still to remove the section.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I AM commenting on content. Content that has been cut. These links which you keep on cutting are to edits you have made. Its not a personal attack to list some of YOUR edits Jim Sweeney.

I repeat that the Battle of Nablus GA reviewer awarded that article GA status with the description of the population living on the battlefield intact. There has been no argument put forward to refute this. There is also no reason why the population on the battlefield subsection should be cut out of this Battle of Sharon article before an editor has a change to carry out a GA review. --Rskp (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The argument is documented above its padding and off focus, agreed by three editors, my edits good or not are not the focus of this discussion, and appear to be only a personal attack or an attempt to sidetrack this discussion. This is about the battlefield population section and whether or not the section is relevant to the article and nothing else. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The battle of Megiddo did not take place in isolation, it took place in the backyards of these peoples, who were affected by its outcome. Mention of who they were and where they lived at the time of the battle, adds to readers understanding of where the battle took place, and is therefore relevant in an article which attempts to broadly describe the battle.

It is possible that descendants of the people who lived on this battlefield are reading Wikipedia and may be interested to know about this battle.

The argument has been made above that the area of the battle was small. In 21st century terms when most people travel by car or bus at 60 miles (97 km) per hour or faster, the battlefield is tiny, but in 1918 the distances were considerable given the means of transport. At the time the vast majority of the combatants travelled by foot or horse at, from 3 miles (4.8 km) per hour.

Links to other Jim Sweeney edits where he sought to cut information, have been cut by him. He says those links TO HIS EDITS are a personal attack. How, I really can't imagine.

He is again seeking to cut information and it is relevant to this discussion that his history of other attempts is known, here. The examples and links can be accessed by going to the "View History" option of this talk page. --Rskp (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the battle and to "stay on topic" we need to have information that relates to its cause, course and outcome.
A claim that the information may be of relevance to a section of readers due to personal links to the content is still not relevant without showing why it is relevant. Unlike in the case where the local population is the cause of the incident or the after effects of wars where munitions continue to kill people.
By saying that another editor has cut material from other articles in the past you are implying (if not outright stating) that they are deletionist by nature. They cut material from other articles therefore the cutting of material from this one is due to their personality not an reasoned application of guidelines and policy.
It is not enough to say that article X has similar content and therefore article Y should also have similar content without a claim to appropiate guidelines and policy - that is an example of OtherStuff. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The information is relevant to the battle's cause by describing what was fought for; not just territory but the lives of the inhabitants who would suffer future occupation.
This information was considered "on topic" when the article X Battle of Nablus passed GA review. Article Y, the Battle of Sharon was fought simultaneously with the Battle of Nablus and together make up the Battle of Megiddo so it IS relevant.
The relevant guidelines complied with include broad coverage, focused and neutral. This is not "OtherStuff".
The implications you personally assign to Jim Sweeney's deletion of material is entirely your concern. It had never occurred to me because he does so much other work, some of which is very good and I have said so. See my edit 05:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC) above. --Rskp (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
not just territory but the lives of the inhabitants who would suffer future occupation the residents of the area were not occupied but part of the Ottoman Empire, and had been for century's, to make this point you need to prove they were suffering, under occupation and the British Empire were trying to liberate them to make their lives better and that it's relevant to the article. Just saying it is does not cut it, and just because its in one article does not mean it should be in another, especially when its inclusion in that other article has also been questioned. Don't get carried away with the idea that just because its passed a GA review makes it a finished article. The Good article process is intentionally lightweight and any registered user can do the review. You don't have to be a university don, or have some Wikipedia super powers. Or even have any knowledge of the article. The consensus still stands at 3-1 to remove the section the GA reviewer has been invited to comment but as yet has failed to do so. They have been active in recent days [5] so I have left another request to comment on their talk.

Even with the section left in it leaves a lot unsaid;

  • In Haifa town, about half the population was Muslim, what were the other half and this is a religion which does not really describe the population. What was their ethnicity?
  • and in Acre almost all were Muslim what other religion was represented. and same question as above.
  • Christians of at least five denominations formed a large majority in and around Nazareth town what denominations?

In fact the section fails to describe the population but tries to describe their religion. Muslims can be Chinese, Asian, European, Middle-Eastern or African and there are growing Muslim communities in the new world countries. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Being a contemporary source it is limited. Hopefully future editors will add to this description, but if this small beginning is not there, they will have to start from scratch or not bother.

You misunderstand me, the people described had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries and were about to be occupied by the British Empire. The liberation you refer to was British propaganda which we can see from our perspective in the 21st century divided and fractured.

I think you sell very short, all the GA reviewers who have worked on the GA articles I have had something to do with. Your demands to the GA reviewer of the Nablus article are unnecessary. That editor has already ruled that the populations subsection along with the rest of the article fulfill GA criteria. Your consensus seeks to a) devalue that assessment of the Nablus article and b) preempt the GA review for this Sharon article. I think you should respect the GA reviewer's ruling on the Nablus article and allow the Sharon article to stand, to be judged by some future GA reviewer with the population subsection included. --Rskp (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No GA reviewer is being sold short, a GA review is just that (read the project page). There are also no demands being made just a request to comment. Also if a description of the battlefield population is necessary, should those article without a description be de-listed as Good Articles. Battle of Jerusalem (1917), Battle of Tulkarm (1918), Capture of Afulah and Beisan, Battle of Magdhaba and Battle of Katia Battle of Romani. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The native population of the area and their influence/reaction to the activities of the Entente and Ottoman powers applies to the whole area during that period, not just this one battle. As well as featuring in the background and outcome to the whole campaign, it would be better covered under an article that deals with the history of the area over the period concerned. (There iare the dissapointingly brief Palestine#Modern_period and History_of_Israel#During_World_War_I) which barely touch on the people or events of the time).
Just because an article is awaiting GA review, there is no reason to hold it in a locked state. An article cannot stand in limbo indefinitely (the review requested was posted 3 months ago). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with including information when its available and germaine to the article? That's a good idea to incorporate the information into other articles and those with knowledge of those areas will be able to, if the subsections describing the populations on the battlefields in the Sharon and Nablus articles, are not deleted. Please reconsider your negative campaigns to cut this interesting information. --Rskp (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A review at WP:GAN is a "personal" review carried out by one reviewer, but that does not preclude other "eligible" editors from contributing to the review, however in that case the first reviewer has the final say (P.S. "eligible" editors just means those editors who are not precluded from reviewing an article, because, e.g. they contributed to the article or nominated it). So, it is the reviewer who decides whether that nomination is compliant with, in the case of this discussion, WP:WIAGA clauses 3 (a) & (b). Since I am not (I've not signed up to do so) reviewing the article my view has no bearing on whether it does or does not comply; and I'm not going to give a judgement here. A different reviewer might come to a different decision, and the quality of reviews ranges from "good" to "poor", but WP:GAR can be used if the review is considered to be deficient and a nomination "wrongly" passed or failed. Secondly, the requirement is to review against WP:WIAGA not against other articles, so arguments of the type "this article needs to include hobbits because Battle for Middle Earth is a GA (it's not - I checked) and it has hobbits, so this article needs them as well" has no bearing on whether an article should or should not be granted a GA. Neither does it provide grounds for delisting existing GA - they can be re-reviewed a delisted if they don't comply with WP:WIAGA, but there is no "Hobbit" test for battles. Finally, I would like to highlight WP:WIAGA clause 5. The article history could be showing signs of an edit war and a reviewer could use that as a (valid) reason for failing the nomination. It might otherwise be a GA-class article, but an article at WP:GAN showing a history of recent an edit war could be failed. Again, the reviewer decides whether it is an edit war, sometimes it is not all that clear whether it is a edit war, an negotiating strategy, or just ongoing attempts to improve the article. Clause 5 is not there to stop improvements, its there to ensure that unstable candidates don't get GA. This response of mine may not be the answer that editors are expecting from me, but having skim-read the points above I've come to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that its about a non-existent "Hobbit" test for battle GAN nominations. I'm happy to expand on my comment if they are not clear. Pyrotec (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There is one other comment that perhaps I could/should add. Some Wikiprojects have issued guidelines for articles that fall into their areas of interest, e.g. I know of three, there is one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers, another at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography and a WP:MILHIST one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide. Now a reviewer could choose to use those to determine compliance with WP:WIAGA clauses 3 (a) & (b), but does not have to and compliance with any or all of those WP-guidelines is not mandatory for an article being awarded GA-status. Interestingly, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide, in my view, can't be used to evaluate compliance with WP:WIAGA clauses 3 (a) & (b) since it does not provide sufficient detail. Some of its "guidelines" are mandatory since they are written with a "should" and some are optional since they are written with a "can", however there is no mention of population. A relative of mine was involved in the Second Boer War, and in that war population was significant and a detailed discussion does appear in the article in a section of its own, i.e. Second Boer War#Concentration camps (1900–1902). I would further suggest that a Second Boer War article that did not discuss population would be "deficient", but that is knowledge that I need to know in order to form a judgement. It was a GA once, but lost its GA. I have not read the Battle of Sharon (1918) article and I have no prior knowledge, so as stated above I have no opinion whether a discussion of population is needed in the article; but if I were to review it that is something that I could/should need to consider. Pyrotec (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This can be worked out through discussion. I've protected this page and two others that are under dispute right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Consensus to remove the section three to one was reached. The one has refused to accept this. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • For now I'm leaving the page protected. Please try to discuss this politely (I note several PAs up there) and focus on the topic at hand. As for my opinion, in theory such a section would be acceptable for a battle known for causing an unusual amount of displacement among the citizens, or one which led to citizen militias (perhaps split between religions or ethnicity) participating, or one in which war crimes (based on ethnicity, religion, etc.) were rampant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It is important that this article not be censored, by cutting relevant information which is contemporary and well cited. This is not unnecessary information about the battle as Jim Sweeney has argued but the last subsection of the Background section of the article. This is the right place for identifying the people living on the battlefield at the time of the battle, as this article describes fighting between two great empires over these peoples' country. Their identity should be available to readers. --Rskp (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Per Crisco 1492 comments as the battle did not cause an unusual amount of displacement among the citizens, or lead to citizen militias etc. That would make consensus 4-1 against the section. Its not about censorship its relevance as already explained. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Members of these communities did form part of the fighting force. For example see Battle of Sharon (1918)#Eighth Army The 20th Infantry Division was a highly regarded regular army division raised and stationed in Palestine. Sometimes referred to as an 'Arab' division, it had fought in the latter phases of the Gallipoli Campaign and had served for a year in Galicia on the Eastern Front fighting Imperial Russia. [Erickson 2007 p. 146] The vast majority of the histories so far written in the English language about this campaign have been focused on the British Empire. So a) major displacements of people living on the battlefields from their land, b) citizens killed by bombing during and after the fighting and c) citizen militias have not been focused on. The source of this information is a rare exception. If the description of the population living on the battlefields at the time, remains intact then there is the possibility that future research may provide more information about the role these peoples played. Without it there is less chance. --Rskp (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Consensus states "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Does the above "community consensus," on cutting the 'Populations living on the battlefields' subsections of the Background to five articles, (see also the First Transjordan attack and the Pursuit to Haritan) represent an evolution of the Wikipedian ethos of consensus into something else? --Rskp (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Still not willing to accept a community decision on this section then. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't understand why the "community" is so worried by the knowledge that -

The inhabitants of the region varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. Living from Jericho northwards, were indigenous Jews in Samaria, Moravians in Galilee, some Druse, Shi'a Metawals and a few Nussiri (pagans). In the east were the Bedouin. [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 61]

In Haifa town, about half the population was Muslim and in Acre almost all were Muslim. On the Esdraelon Plain as far as Beisan were Sunni Arabs and one new Jewish colony near Afulah. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in the foothill country of Northern Galilee. Christians of at least five denominations formed a large majority in and around Nazareth town. The inhabitants of the eastern part of this Northern Galilee area were predominantly indigenous Jews, who had always inhabited Tiberias and Safed. [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 62]

The article is diminished when you cut this relevant and inoffensive information. The source is a good one, no one disputes the validity of the information. Its being cut because Jim Sweeney says its padding, and has no bearing on the battle, GraemeLeggett is against it because the inhabitants were not active participants, Blackmane says its unrelated. The sources for the article do not say the locals did or did not participate in the battle. So how can these editors know enough to make such judgements? --Rskp (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi colons[edit]

This article has numerous spg errors. As you all keep undoing my changes, can the article's owner or manager fix them please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added my comment back. It seems very rude to remove a comment without answering it. All I want is someone to fix the punctuation in the article. The semi colons are not being used correctly.
To the webmaster who is removing what I write, please don't delete my question. I would like an answer to it please. If I am not allowed to edit the article because I am not an article owner, please explain how I become an article owner because I would like to fix the punctuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi welcome to Wikipedia, there is no ownership and anyone can edit this article, the editor who keeps deleting your changes should know better. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The editor has added &ndash between a word and a semicolon which I thought was a bit excessive. If the &ndash were added between every word and semicolon or other punctuation mark the articles would be very difficult to read in edit mode. I don't see the spelling errors which I would have hoped the Guild Copyedit would have picked up, but there were major changes of meaning which I didn't agree with which led me to undoing the bit about the 15th Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade which article Jim Sweeney is very involved with. Jim Sweeney has, like you also added the over quoted tag to this article. It may well be a problem, but as the article is currently waiting a GA review, lets see what the reviewer says, shall we? --Rskp (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Rskp, none of this explains why you deleted the constructive talk page comments from another user [6]. I remind you that this is considered poor form per WP:TALKO (and its not the first time either). Anotherclown (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Large use of quoted passages[edit]

While I see merit in using quoted sections from Allenby to show his thoughts on the battleplan etc, there does seem to be whole sub-sections with quoted text. Eg Yildrim defence preparations. And long quotes from Allenby's letters. While Allenby's letters and missives attribut origin, other quotes such as the Yildrim section aren't clear of the origin - is it text from the book, or text quoted in the book. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the problem with the Yildirim subsection. I have re edited it (hopefully) to better reflect Erickson's very valuable info. The Aftermath section still has a lot of direct quotes but as first hand sources speak directly to the issues, hope they can remain. However, I am most grateful for all constructive advice. --Rskp (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Sharon (1918)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I'm starting the review of this article now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. There are some serious issues here. The grammar and prose is in need of significant work throughout. An example from the lead is "These major infantry attacks by large formations in a set piece attack, created a gap in the front line through which the Desert Mounted Corps cavalry advanced many miles behind enemy lines to capture Afulah, Beisan and Jenin the next day and get in position to capture many thousands of retreating German and Ottoman soldiers in the following days". This very long sentence has only two commas, one of which is a list comma. The subject of the sentence is not clear and the repetition of "attack" in the early part of the sentence needs a rework. Other examples include the use of "was" instead of "were" in the lead, ie using singular past tense instead of plural past tense, ie "the ... trenches were heavily attacked" should be used. "Firepower" is one word. There are dozens of such issues in the lead alone. There are multiple issues with grammar, misuse of the semi-colon, unclear sentence construction and spelling errors just in the lead which continue throughout the article. The significant overuse of quotations that should simply be rendered as plain prose is also an issue. I recommend a thorough WP:GOCE copy edit to bring the article up to GA standard against 1a.
  • Thanks for that. It was copyedited by a GOCE editor who spent a lot of time on the citations which I thought was outside the concerns of GOCE and was non-plussed when this copyedit was complete in a day. At that point I did not know how best to proceed, so continued to submit it for GA as was my stated reason for requesting GOCE. Having just spent some time on the intro I quite see the problems and will address them as best I can. --Rskp (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The article has been copyedited fairly thoroughly over the last several days when most of the major problems have been weeded out. --Rskp (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. There are a number of issues here.
The first sentence does not mention any of the following facts; that this battle was; part of the Battle of Megiddo; part of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign; or part of WWI. For this reason among several others it "drops the reader into the middle of subject from the first word" contrary to WP:LEAD, and does not meet the MOS requirements for the lead section in the areas of "first sentence" and "contextual links" at a minimum. It needs a major rework after a close reading of WP:LEAD
  • The lead has been extensively rewritten. --Rskp (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    2. Layout
    OK, but there are some very small sections that would probably be better rendered as embedded lists.
  • Numerous subsections have been merged to simplify the layout. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    3. WP:WTW
    4. Fiction
    5. List incorporation
    I can see there has been a serious effort to avoid embedded lists, but there are a number of areas where embedded bulleted lists would be appropriate, particularly where you explain what a series of formations or units did etc.
  • Hi, the motive for the serious efforts to avoid embedded lists has been ignorance. I've had a brief look at MOS but can't find reference to them. I have used bullets and numbers elsewhere - is that what you mean? --Rskp (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • In the background section of the article, is a citation needed for the reference to the Hundred Days Offensive which was not mentioned by the sources quoted but is supported by a link to the appropriate article? --Rskp (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. But only just, there is a lot of what some reviewers might consider edit-warring going on regarding a couple of issues, notably the local population. I take the view that robust discussion is not grounds for a no here, but if the issue cannot be resolved by consensus on the talk page, it should go to some sort of dispute resolution IMO, and I wouldn't bring it back to GAN until the matters are resolved.
  • The description of the people living on the battlefield has been cut at the insistence of Jim Sweeney and his consensus of editors in the sway of Anglocentrice and German/Ottoman-centric historians. --Rskp (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. The following images need their licensing fixed.
1. File:AWMH18747Afulah.jpg
2. File:IWM HU69889.jpeg
3. File:AWMB02113 HandleyPage Aircraft.jpg
4. File:AWMB02101Wreckage.jpg
5. File:Cutlack Map8 p.160.jpeg
6. File:AWMB03305Anebta.jpg
  • URAA tag added. --Rskp (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Some captions are too long and much of the text should be provided in the article body. An example is File:Falls Map 21det.jpeg. What is a Falls Map? The use of this term is unclear, "Map of the situation as at 04:30 23 September 1918 showing..." would probably be sufficient.
  • Done. --Rskp (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
7. Overall assessment. A long and detailed article that covers the subject more than adequately and has many good features. Unfortunately it falls down significantly in GA attribute 1, and the issues in areas such as grammar, spelling, punctuation and prose mean that there isn't scope to put this article on hold as the copy edit needs to be comprehensive and will take some time. I strongly recommend a WP:GOCE copyedit followed by a MILHIST peer review then re-submit to GAN. Well done on your efforts so far and good luck with improving the article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. The article has been fairly extensively copyedited and reconstructed. I'd be grateful if you could have another look to see if its approaching GA yet. --Rskp (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


G'day all, it's not clear to me why this article title has disambiguation by year in parentheses. There is no other Battle of Sharon on en WP, and the only other battle with a similar name that I am aware of is the The Battle of Sharon Springs Swamp (sometimes referred to as the "Battle of Sharon"), a very small action of the American Revolutionary War that occurred near Sharon Springs, New York. Even if an article existed for that battle (which it doesn't), this would be the primary topic and the ARW battle would need disambiguation. I propose moving this article to Battle of Sharon iaw WP:TITLE. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There may have been some concern of confusion with more recent or more distant events in the area, as there is with Battle of Damascus, Battle of Jezzine, Battle of Jerusalem. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Graeme, no doubt there is some concern with those battles, but Battle of Jerusalem is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and a disambiguation page has been created which directs traffic for Battle of Damascus and Battle of Jezzine which are both sensibly disambiguated. There is no issue with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or need for disambiguation with this article, and no basis for disambiguating it just because other battle articles from 1918 require disambiguation, so going to good faith move it to the undisambiguated version to bring it into line with WP:TITLE. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, seems logical and IAW WP. Anotherclown (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. I might add that this appears to be a common issue with the Sinai and Palestine Campaign articles. I'm moving them as I find them. There are a few that need to retain the disambiguation by year, but not that many. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Section templates[edit]

G'day, the section template currently being used for the background section of this, and numerous others articles of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, is not in accordance with WP:BODY, which explicitly says that "If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition—see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text." I have made the gentle suggestion that the number of links be reduced, but this appears to have fallen on deaf ears. As all but one of the listed battles are already linked in the text of the article, only the Battle of Tell 'Asur and Occupation of the Jordan Valley should be there at all. The purpose for which they are being used is not the purpose for which they exist. I have therefore removed them all except the two that I've mentioned. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Populations living on the battlefields redux[edit]

Seriously guys, this is getting into LAME territory if you keep bumping heads. Roselyn, we've pointed out that CONSENSUS is that the section is not necessary. Until a new consensus is formed, continuously reinserting the section is ignoring consensus and may be reverted. If you disagree with the old consensus, try opening a new thread for comments or focussing on polishing what is here for a new GA nomination. If you continue to edit war you and other participants, depending on the degree of warring, may be blocked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone care about Populations living on the battlefields? I mean this is a military history article! ChristiaandeWet (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Must military history articles only be about the fighting? This wide ranging article describing 10 battles fought over an extended area, is diminished when relevant and inoffensive information is cut. The source is a good one, no one disputes the validity of the information. The much touted consensus to cut consists of Jim Sweeney who says its padding, and has no bearing on the battle, GraemeLeggett who is against it because the inhabitants were not active participants, and Blackmane says its unrelated. The sources for the article do not say the locals did or did not participate in the battle. So how can these editors make such judgements? --Rskp (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Do the sources say what part they paid in this battle then? Including them as said before is off focus and not relevant to a battle article, where they played no part.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
"sources for the article do not say the locals did or did not participate in the battle" - that sources do not give any further information on the battle and the locals rather suggests the authors did not think it relevant either.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My point exactly. This information about who lived on the battlefield at the time, is valuable because it adds to the Anglocentric and the German/Ottoman-centric historians view of the battles. You are absolutely right they didn't care about the locals but their descendants are alive and possible readers of Wikipedia. --Rskp (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The following information has been cut from the article due to consensus rulling[edit]

"The people living on the battlefield varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. From Jericho northwards, indigenous Jews lived in Samaria, Moravians in Galilee, some Druse, along with Shi'a Metawals and a few Nussiri (pagans). In the east lived the Bedouin." [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 61] "In Haifa town, about half the population was Muslim and in Acre almost all were Muslim. On the Esdraelon Plain as far as Beisan Sunni Arabs lived along with a new Jewish colony near Afulah. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in the foothill country of Northern Galilee. In and around Nazareth town Christians from at least five denominations formed a large majority. The inhabitants of the eastern part of this Northern Galilee area were predominantly indigenous Jews, who had always inhabited Tiberias and Safed." [GB Army EEF Handbook 9/4/18 p. 62] --Rskp (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Others also acknowledge the role of minorities in ww1. An up and coming conference at the University of Chester will be focusing on "The experience of minorities in the First World War is one of the most significant, yet least developed aspects of the conflict’s history." --Rskp (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Sharon/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WikiCopter (talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry so long in responding. My computer died halfway through reviewing, so now I have to reconstruct my review from scratch. Here are the main points I remember.

Thanks for taking this on. Much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Points cleared[edit]

  • Text is confusing in places. Examples: "set piece Battle of Megiddo" and "Western Front style bombardment",
These sections of the intro have been rewritten to hopefully clarify the confusion --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Cemal appointed Cemal Kucjuk Pasha to command the Fourth Army." (Cemal is never mentioned except for this sentence),
A link has been added to identify this Cemal --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Grammar is still bumpy in places. I suggest a GOCE guy to come in and copyedit. Examples:
    • List in Background section should be converted to prose and mention should be made that this is only a list of battles in the Palestinian region.
Reorganised into prose. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • First sentence of Reorganisation of EEF needs reorganisation (I'm American, I changed my spelling for you)
Rewritten to clarify meaning. Thanks, I'm Australian so often a bit confused, sometimes its color and sometimes its colour, but I think programme has become program! --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"By April 1918, 35 Indian infantry and two Indian pioneer battalions were preparing to move to Palestine.[14] Those battalions with numbers from 150 upwards, were formed by removing complete companies from experienced regiments then serving in Mesopotamia to form new battalions."

  1. This whole paragraph has been added by another editor who insisted during a virtual edit war on the information as it stands. Can you advise on the etiquette as I'm not sure how to proceed. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    1. Jim Sweeney appears to be annoying. Perhaps revise this paragraph and reduce it in size somewhat, but don't provoke another edit battle. WikiCopter Returns 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      1. I really dare not touch it as I'm amazed its been as stable as it has. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Consider editing down Reorganisation of EEF. See criteria 3b for GA. I think this section goes into too much detail, and some of this detail could get moved to the EEF article.
  1. I agree with you about this section but as it was the subject of a virtual edit war I am very reluctant to touch anything added by the other editor. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In July 2012 before the copy edit and edit war, the article looked like this [7] --Rskp (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

    1. At least you can try to edit it down a bit. It really is confusing to the casual reader, and it is too detailed. WikiCopter Returns 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      1. I can only agree. I've requested Dank have a look at it and I'm hopeful that Dank may be able to negotiate a way round the threat of another edit war. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There are many instances of sloppy grammar. I really suggest posting a request at GOCE, especially as they are having their backlog drive now.
  1. The article was copyedited by the GOCE. I've been reluctant to approach GOCE since because references were mucked up and the copyedit completed in a day. See comments regarding GOCE in first GAR. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    1. I did see the first GAR. Please see Peacemaker67's comment at bottom. WikiCopter Returns 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      1. Yes, I did re edit the article and am currently addressing the comma problem. But the 750 edit war have taken their toll and I don't want to spark any renewal if I can help it. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • They were supported by British Army Machine Gun Corps squadrons,[27] and by the 3rd Light Horse Brigade Machine Gun Squadron,[37] the 4th Light Horse Brigade Machine Gun Squadron,[38][39] and the 2nd New Zealand Machine Gun Squadron attached to the 5th Light Horse Brigade." All in all, what was attached, and what wasn't?
  1. Yes, I agree this is an instance where the other editor has insisted on a high degree of precision. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    1. Please clarify sentence.
      1. Done the best I can. The information regarding the British Army Machine Gun Corps squadrons was added by Jim Sweeney and Jim Sweeney has requested a clarification of this information. --Rskp (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
        1. Jim Sweeney has cut all references to machine gun squadrons. --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't offer an opinion on grammer as I haven't read it in detail but I did notice that the infobox lacks details such as strength and casualties - something which is pretty standard for most similar articles. Is this information available? If so it should be included. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
As the GA1 reviewer that failed it the first time I am loath to influence this review, but... I respect Rskp's concerns about the previous GOCE, however the grammar remains problematic and needs to get fixed somehow. IMO grammar is a common issue with these SP Campaign articles (mostly sentences that are too long and unclear construction) so short of getting our in-house copy editing guru Dank's attention on this, I have previously suggested that Rskp approach User:Diannaa or another GOCE copyeditor that she recommends. Has this happened or not? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for suggestions. Putting onhold pending copyedit. I suggest Dank or Diannaa too. I like Dank's quality. WikiCopter Returns 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Have requested Dank copyedit the article. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyediting is only thing left. WikiCopter Returns 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC) See Anotherclown's comments above. WikiCopter Returns 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand Dank. There are no plans to submit this article at A-class level. Diannaa has declined to copyedit it saying that its too long for a GAR. [8] Is length a criteria? Should I approach GOCE? --Rskp (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Stats requested by Anotherclown added. --Rskp (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
GOCE requested. --Rskp (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Points requiring more attention[edit]

Copyeditor comments[edit]

Comments. I've had a look, and I can't copyedit something unless I know what the writer was trying to say, and in many cases here, I don't know. Starting at the top:

  • "The Battle of Sharon is together with the Battle of Nablus": What does it mean that two battles are together?
    • Yes, that's right
  • "also known as the Battle of Megiddo": Both battles together are known as Megiddo, or the second one?
    • both battles together are known as the Megiddo battle
  • "all being fought": "all" generally means more than two, but I only see two here.
    • Well, yes we are talking about three battles
  • "large formations": what large formations?
    • It would overcomplicate the first sentence to list them. They are referred to in the next sentences.
  • "set piece battle": that's a little jargony, that is, people who aren't well-read on military matters probably won't know what it means
    • True, so I've included a brief explanation
  • "attacking and responding to movements by the opposition, according to pre-existing plans": I'm not sure, but I think this means they went into battle with detailed orders on their expected moves and counter-moves.
    • Yes, that's right preexisting plan as in set piece battle
  • "The Battle of Sharon part of this great battle": great as in big, or great as in important? If "important", that's probably out per WP:WORDS. Great doesn't commonly mean "big" these days.
    • Great in both senses, important and big
  • "The Battle of Sharon began on 19 September ... During this Battle of Tulkarm ... eventually captured during the Battle of Tabsor": I can't tell anything from this about the interrelationship of these battles ... were Tulkarm and Tabsor part of the Battle of Sharon?
    • Yes, they were both part of the Battle of Sharon section of the Battle of Megiddo, along with the engagements at Arara, Afulah/Beisan, Nazareth, Jenin, Samakh and Tiberias, and Haifa.
  • I'll stop there. There's just not a lot I can do here, yet. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Hope I've clarified things a bit for you. Its unfortunate that the complexity of these battles can't be explained in the infobox but a consensus ruled against it. --Rskp (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I've rewritten the first paragraph to hopefully clarify the introduction. --Rskp (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The lead is better; it needs some work, but the current lead plus your explanation here gives me a clearer idea what happened. I'm having a different problem as I skim down the page ... I can't figure out why most of what's included is included, that is, I'm not being told what the relevance is to the surrounding material, or the battle. I can't think of a fix for this; I don't have time to ask that many questions ... and probably, there are people who are more familiar with the material who wouldn't have to ask so many questions, which might get annoying. So ... I'm sorry, I don't have much help to offer here. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you are referring to either. It is a copyedit that is needed. I'm sorry too! --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Diannaa has been approached to do a copyedit. --Rskp (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It may be Dank was referring to the Reorganisation of the EEF subsection. I've shifted it back to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign where it started, before the edit war took off. --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I lack the full skill set I would need to be comfortable with the final result, but I have a solution: assuming this passes GAN, please bring it to A-class. If people there are happy, then I'm happy, and I'll copyedit it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the current status of the copyedit? WikiCopter Returns 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Me? I won't copyedit this until it hits A-class and people there are happy with it. There's work that needs to be done at the A-class level; no opinion on what needs to be done for GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand Dank. There are no plans to submit this article at A-class level. Diannaa has declined to copyedit it saying that its too long for a GAR. [9] Is length a criteria? Should I approach GOCE? --Rskp (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Passed, although the length of the article is a concern that you will have to get through in the future. WikiCopter Returns 22:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. I appreciate your interest and thank you for spending a considerable amount of time on this article. --Rskp (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Populations living on the battlefield"[edit]

An IP editor seems to have taken against the re-introduction of this section. It wasn't present the article was promoted to GA.

Presumably, if they are editing this article, there is a chance they will read the talk page. Rskp, can you just explain what you mean by "reinstate populations living on the battlefield subsection according to WP:POLL". GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If I understand WP:POLL correctly it means that a consensus is not necessarily the last word, that a decision can be based on the strength of the arguments. In this article which covers a number of sub-battles, fought over a considerable area of Palestine, there is a strong need for information about the people living on the battlefield, to highlight that it wasn't empty land and the diversity of the peoples. --Rskp (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you must have a different part of a guideline in mind. Lots of talk about polls and consensus in that link and "votes without reasonable accompanying rationales receive little consideration unless you also explain why you are voting the way you are. Votes without rationales sometimes are ignored" but that and references strength of argument/citing applicable policy is usually applied to AfD, move requests etc rather than agreement on content within an argument. And in such cases it is an outsider to the discussion (admin) who makes the decision. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not suggesting "an agreement on content within an argument" but an acknowledgement of the strength or weakness of the arguments put forward. I think that is was WP:POLL is all about, isn't it? --Rskp (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)