Talk:Stalemate in Southern Palestine

Notability

The notability of this article has been questioned by adding this tag [notability|date=May 2013] without discussion. If there are concerns about the notability of this article, please discuss them here. --Rskp (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about topics which occurred after one battle and before another (weather conditions, medical problems, dust, rest camps, patrolling, reorganization, cricket and boxing matches). Nothing of note appears to have occurred during this period. Essentially not notable on their own and should be included in the campaign article in far less detail. Too much padding and pointless quotes to try and make it look like it is notable. I can see a lot of work has been done on this article but unfortunately it is about nothing in particular. Is Stalemate in Southern Palestine even an appropriate name? Who calls it this or is this made up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.29.241.180 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously this anonymous editor is an experienced Wikipedia editor, why doesn't s/he identify themselves? You need to read the whole article before making sweeping judgements. Stalemate has been referred to in the literature. --Rskp (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to create an account, or for the IP editor to identify him/her self, to edit Wikipedia. I agree why is this article notable, its not a battle or any other notable event. The arrival of Allenby and the changes he brought about could form a stand alone article but could also be included in the campaign article. I have hesitated to comment before this because of your well documented ownership of article problems. Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney, the Stalemate is referred to in the literature and the occupation of the northern edge of the Negev Desert from April to October 1917, is notable as a site outside Europe of western front style trench warfare during WW1, along with aerial combat, raids, combat and reconnaissance patrolling. The conditions the soldiers endured during the summer of 1917, on the edge of the Negev Desert, also make this period of fighting notable. --Rskp (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

22.92.241.180 is attacking this article, cutting the infobox, and a lot of information integral to the notability of the operations, before notability has been discussed. --Rskp (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It does seem that there have been some "interesting", although in my opinion constructive, IP edits to this article over the past week. While I agree that there is nothing wrong with an IP editing this or any other article proposals such as this made by anonymous users usually don't go anywhere because they get proposed in a drive by manner and then the proposer doesn't continue to participate in the discussion. As such I have contacted IP 202 on his / her talkpage to encourage them to login (see here). To respond to the issues raised so far I agree that this article is excessively long and at the very least requires a concerted effort to reduce it. On the main I am of the opinion that the topic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia (it does cover a 6 month period during a major military campaign); however, how this is done is open to discussion and I am not altogether convinced that it meets the notability guideline under WP:GNG for a stand alone article. If ultimately the decision is made to keep as a discreet article though I would like to see it become more focused. At the moment it seems to be a collection of a large amount of unimportant trivia and quotes and quite honestly is boring to read. The vast majority of the information in these quotes could easily be conveyed in fewer words if the quotes were re-written as prose. As it stands it seems to be written rather lazily using excessive quotes like a lot of the popular histories about this campaign that are increasingly available, rather than using a more academic and economical writing style that would probably be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Hopefully the established editor currently working on this article will show good faith and allow these IP edits to be considered and discussed rather than blindly reverted, although from recent activity and that user's previous history of article ownership this doesn't seem likely. Anotherclown (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Anotherclown thinks I would "blindly revert" another editor's work. Why he would think my edits are not made in good faith, I can't imagine. I'm grateful for Anotherclown's feedback regarding the article and agree its unwieldy. Yes, I did lump together a whole lot of information because during this period so much happened, not the least of which was the trench warfare, combat patrolling, the reorganisations of the opposing forces and the arrival of the new commanders, while the EEF managed to hold their position in the face of strong opposition and terrible conditions. I look forward to the short comings of this article being discussed, rather than the article being attacked, and hacked to pieces. --Rskp (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Rskp. I note from this edit that you have already started reverting [1] and have re-added the infobox that was removed by Jim. Because you offered no explanation for this I have reverted. Discussion of the issue will hopefully allow some form of consensus to develop as opposed to an edit war. Interestingly the infobox you restored was also your original one, rather than that with the edits made by IP 202 in which you somewhat excessively describe the location as "...Southern Palestine from the Mediterranean coast west of Gaza to the east of Beersheba with front line more or less following the Gaza to Beersheba road...." and describe the result as a "...stalemate...". Obviously there are a few issues at stake here.

1. Firstly is an infobox appropriate, and if it is, what should it contain? At the moment the requirement for an infobox is probably contingent on whether this is actually considered an "event" or just a period b/n two events (and this comes to the heart of whether it is notable and requires a standalone article). I haven't formed an opinion about this yet and would be interested in seeing a discussion from both Jim and yourself about this.
2. Secondly. If an infobox is retained I for one agree with IP 202's summary of the result as opposed to yours. They wrote: "...EEF offensive resumes following the Battle of Beersheba..." which makes more sense to me than "stalemate". Really how can the result of the "Stalemate of Southern Palestine" be a "stalemate" as you seem to be suggesting. Ultimately the stalemate ended and this was the result. I also agree with their summary of the location as "...Southern Palestine from the Mediterranean coast west of Gaza to the east of Beersheba..." which is more succinct that yours.

Is there any chance you will actually discuss this or are you just going to continue to revert? Anotherclown (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The attacks on Stalemate in Southern Palestine, before and during the raising of the question of notability, are changing the article before a decision has been reached. I reinstated the infobox, which is an overview of the article, to aid readers participation in that discussion. Anotherclown's accusation, that this one reinstatement was part of a campaign by me to revert changes made to the article, is wrong. --Rskp (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Silly me, I must have thought that the 11 reverts [not reverts these are all constructive edits] you made on 01 Jun ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) and the two on 02 Jun ([13][14]) indicated a pattern. How instructive that you characterize any edits to this article to be an "attack". Anotherclown (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

None of these edits were simple reverts, Anotherclown. They were all good faith edits, made to reconstruct and salvage some meaning, while the article was being cut to pieces, by disruptive editors. Why is there still no discussion about any of the tags? --Rskp (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The first three so called reverts were in fact 1: cut grammar tag, copyedit already requested from Guild 2: cut notability tag moved to talk page, 3: reinsert "10,000" which emphasises the scale of the two defeats‬. These were all good faith edits, NOT revers. --Rskp (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Semantics. There is no difference b/n you "reinstating" something and reverting. The problems with this article have clearly been outlined above if you care to actually look. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• So, why don't you reinstate the infobox with the changes you want, Anotherclown? --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying you agree with the proposed wording? Given there has been no real discussion of the points raised above it is difficult to move this fwd. Do other editors feel an infobox is appropriate and if so what should it contain? I don't have an issue with there being an infobox per se although like I said there is [the still open] question of whether the stalemate that occurred in Southern Palestine in Apr to Oct 1917 was an event itself, or a period b/n two events. Are there any other opinions on this? Anotherclown (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Anotherclown, its because there has been no real discussion regarding the cutting of the whole infobox, that I have not been able to see how to move forward, and so I have hesitated to contribute to this article. I don't understand what the ramifications would be, between whether the stalemate was an event, or a period between events. But I would argue that it was a series of events during which the front lines were actively fought for. The trench warfare included raids by each side and the combat and reconnaissance patrols included surprise attacks. Also there were major developments in the way the war was fought, when things learned on the western front were transferred to this theatre, including the changes in commanders in chief both of whom were western front veterans of some standing. --Rskp (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Below you wrote: "However, without the infobox, editors are going to have difficulty assessing this article's importance. When the merge tag was added the infobox was still with the article. It has since been cut twice, once by Jim Sweeney here [20] which I reinstated here [21], and again by Anotherclown here [22]. Without the info box it will be extremely difficult to access this article's notability. My appeal to the Administrators regarding the disruptive edits of this article fell on deaf ears, but the affects of those cuts have left it in tatters. Does anyone care? --Rskp (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)" Will respond here to avoid fragmenting the discussion.

• Firstly I reverted your "reinstatement" of the infobox because you seemed to be following your established pattern of reverting any edit you disagree with, rather than discussing an issue to establish a consensus (especially as you double reverted back to your original infobox and not even back to the version that was trimmed by IP 202).

My mistake. I unintentionally added the old infobox, forgetting that it had been updated. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Secondly you asked below: "What issues regarding this do you see are preventing it being reinstated.." Mainly the need to establish consensus. I would suggest posting at MILHIST to get other editors involved in the discussion. I for one would be happy for an infobox, as long the article can be successfully reduced and focused, as this will establish its notability, rather than being largely a collection of trivia. Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid a repeat of the treatment I received last time I requested help on the MILHIST discussion page. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Lastly I think the way forward is to address the issues I raised in the list below. Don't worry about the issue of notability etc, as that will sort itself out. This article hasn't been AFD'd, and I don't see why it would be. So I would encourage you just to crack on. Will make some suggestions to assist with this. Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues you raise are all to do with cutting the length of the article, and are all quite trivial copyediting issues, moving commas and rewriting direct quotes, etc. Before I continue down this path set by the anonymous IP editors, I think there needs to be a discussion about whether this article would be improved, by being cut into two separate articles. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have reinstated the infobox version Jim Sweeney cut two weeks ago on 2 June, here [15]. His rationale for making that cut, was that "This is not a military conflict - just a period of time during WWI, so the info box is not right." This idea has not been supported in the two weeks since then, by any other editor. In fact the article describes numerous military conflicts which took place during the period, in the form of trench warfare and combat patrols by both infantry and mounted units of the EEF. And it appears that Anotherclown cut the infobox a second time, after I had attempted to reinstate it, because I had added an older version. The version reinstated today is not that older version. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. I reverted because you refused to discuss before "reinstating" (reverting). Pls don't put words into my mouth. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

"Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia." Wikipedia:Disruptive editing As well as deleting large sections of this article with little justification and no discussion, it has been subjected to "drive-by" tagging without explaining the problem nor the beginning of a discussion. I began the notability discussion because the attack was made without explanation. "If a page needs significant work, especially if it's a new page, then don't tag a page for every single problem. Add a tag for the one or two most urgent problems. When those have been resolved, then future editors can look for less urgent issues. Don't distract from major problems by adding tags for trivial ones." Wikipedia:Tag bombing‬ Too many tags have been added but when I cut some of them they were immediately put back. "Leave the minor problems, like the lack of links to other articles, for another time." Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup --Rskp (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively.Wikipedia:Competence is required The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia.

• Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity.
• Disruptive edits may not occur all in the course of one 24 hour period, and may not consist of the repetition of the same act. Nevertheless, a series of edits over time may form a pattern that seriously disrupts the project."
• A disruptive editor is an editor who: Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
• Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified citation needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." Wikipedia:Disruptive editing --Rskp (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Cmts such as this and your post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents are probably the reason why there hasn't been much discussion. If you assumed good faith rather than harassing a new user by starting an ANI thread against them they may well have decided to continue to participate in the discussion on how to improve this article. Anotherclown (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Anotherclown and the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents have to employ attack as their best defense. Neither party has addressed the issues raised regarding disruptive edits. [16] Anotherclown is being disingenuous, when he claims the cuts to this article were made by "new users." The disruptive edits have the hall marks of an experienced editor. There has been no discussion on how to improve this article only attacks on me. --Rskp (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You started the ANI thread, that it has resulted in scrutiny of your actions has nothing to do with anyone else. You will note I have had no involvement in that discussion. Regardless, so far you are the only editor that considers the IP edits to this article to be disruptive. Just saying an edit is disruptive because you disagree with it is disingenuous. Anotherclown (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I based by application to the Administrator's noticeboard on the Disruptive editing page on Wikipedia. The discussion about whether the IP editors were acting in good faith or not is immaterial, because "The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia." (see above) My application to the Administrator's noticeboard was written within the context of the Wikipedia Disruptive editing article, and yet no one has even looked at it. Its not my opinion that the edits of this page are disruptive but Wikipedia's Disruptive editing article, e.g. the "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors," is considered by Wikipedia to be disruptive editing. And adding multiple tags without seeking to discuss any of them is considered tag bombing. Yet none of these issues have been even looked at by anyone but me. --Rskp (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't ignoring this post, but have waited to respond because I couldn't really follow what you were trying to say. Obviously I do not agree with you that the IP edits were disruptive and neither it seems did anyone at ANI. Regardless, I think sufficient time has now passed to try and move on here, especially as it does not look like that editor is going to participate in the discussion any further anyway (I have contacted them on their page and asked them to login and to discuss these issues but given they seem to be using a dynamic IP address they probably didn't get the msg anyway). Anotherclown (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I can get a bit obtuse at times. My concerns about these edits were that they were so disruptive, not that they were made by anonymous IP numbers. Although the people involved were clearly experienced users. But the edits took the form of an attack on the article, there being no prior discussion before making quite radical cuts, and no discussion about the tags. I started the notability discussion which seemed to go nowhere. These actions seemed to me to be described in the Wikipedia Disruptive edits article, and so I thought an appeal to the administrators, could be useful. Clearly they don't like me and have no time for my concerns. A salutory lesson. Nevertheless, I agree with the too long tag and have been trying to think of perhaps making two articles, one to do with the stalemate and one to do with the preparations for mobile warfare. These preparations were significant because they enabled to EEF to advance 50 miles to Jerusalem and also enabled the great advances to be made in 1918. But I can't see how to proceed while there are questions of notability and ownership hanging over this article. I have to admit to being completely at a loss to understand the accusations of Ownership. Until someone explains why all the administrators think I've contravened ownership rules, any contribution I could make must be very careful. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of any feedback regarding any of the issues raised including the possibility of creating two separate articles, I've gone ahead and shifted 50,000 bites to a new article about Allenby's preparations for the offensive and cut the too long tag. --Rskp (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues

(Since you asked) some of the issues that I see with this article are as fol:

• Too long. At 208 kb the article is far too long for a topic that is of questionable importance (as an IP noted in its original form it was 245th largest article out of over 4.2 million, making it larger than 99.9% of articles on Wikipedia). The reasons for this include:
  • Overuse of block quotes, which are unnecessary. The information they convey should be condensed and re-written as prose; and
  • Excessive detail. There are numerous instances of fairly unimportant trivia which should be removed. See Wikipedia:Article size.
• Too many headings. There are numerous examples of single paragraph and even single sentence sections. These detract from the flow of the narrative and should be consolidated. I note that another editor has already made an attempt to reduce these but there is more work req'd.
• Prose qlty and grammar. The article requires an extensive copy-edit, which you yourself have admitted.

Yes, I have also admitted the article is too long. --Rskp (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But I can't comment on the quality of the grammar or prose, although I believe it was close to GA standard before all the cuts. --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Poor qlty maps. Many of the maps are of such poor qlty or limited detail that they detract from the article and seem amateurish (one is a double page scan with the shadow of the spine of the book from which it was taken). These should be replaced.
• Reference formatting. There are numerous issues with the formatting of your references section, including not using the appropriate fields of the {{cite book}} template, incorrect presentation of publishers, not using title case, inconsistent presentation of authors name (in some you use last name then first, and in others you use first name then last). See Template:Cite_book for guidance on this.
  • References are completed. Anotherclown (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Links. Other than the Sinai and Palestine Campaign template this article is underlinked, further links need to be added per WP:LINK. Anotherclown (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Anotherclown for setting out so clearly the problems you find with this article. If notability is no longer in question can the merge tag be cut? I had asked for the article to be copyedited by the guild but took it off when all the cuts were made. I am sure the article is no longer anywhere near a readable state, but cannot proceed while there are ownership issues to be clarified. So the question now is, what work am I allowed to carry out, on this article? As I understand it the cuts are sacrosanct and cannot be revisited without being accused of ownership problems. Do I have to turn around and try and make sense of the remnants of the article? If I do will that also raise ownership issues?

It appears I am not able to add any relevant material. For instance, there is mention in the literature of scant coverage of the training of the EEF, so when I came across a mention I thought it useful to add to the Stalemate article, as that was the period during which the training referred to, took place. This info has been cut by you. Can you please advise me if I can proceed with this article or not? --Rskp (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No one has said you can't edit the article, what I disagree with is the fact you wouldn't let others do so (i.e. "reinstating" your preferred version after the recent IP edits) and the continued addition of irrelevant detail. Some of the issues with this article have now been laid out for you above. By all means be bold and work through the article to address these. I would suggest that re-adding the information that has been cut would not be constructive though. The bulk of what appears to have been removed were very detailed quotes (sometimes about trivial matters). Regardless, if you feel these quotes provided important information consider condensing and re-writing in your own words, rather than just cutting and pasting. If you feel you need to expand parts of the article it might be best to start a discussion thread outlining your proposed change and why it is necessary. IRT the information I supposedly "cut" from the article about training I assume you are referring to this sentence (which you added here [17] and I reverted here [18]):

"Lieutenant Robert H. Goodsall, Territorial Battery, Royal Field Artillery described the results of training carried out during this time, when his battery arrived at the firing line at the beginning of the Battle of Hareira. "Very soon they came along in great style, which made one feel proud of the spade work done during the months of training, and dropped into action as if on a 'drill order.'"<ref>Goodsall 1925 p. 64</ref>"

Personally I do not see why you need to use a quote here. If as you say there isn't much information on the training conducted by the EEF during this time I can see why you are limited in what to include, but in reality this paragraph doesn't say very much at all (merely that this battery conducted training prior to the battle and as a result were well drilled). Condense in your own words using language more appropriate for 2013 (as opposed to 1925 when it was written). Anotherclown (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Anotherclown, it would be really great if you could get all this done, because if I do it, and not every edit reduces the size of the article, its likely that my edits will be undone. Its clear that such disruptions will be condoned by the Administrators, but it will make the work onerous and I could again be accused of ownership. --Rskp (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Rskp. Pls do not take what has happened here the wrong way. You do not need permission from anyone to continue to edit this article, you just need to collaborate with others as you do so. I appreciate the way you have stood back from this article for a while and see that as an encouraging sign. Given that it now only seems to be you and me that are showing any interest in this article we need to find a way fwd. Otherwise this article will remain in its current, now half edited, state, which would be a shame. I am prepared to go through the article and propose a few sections that I feel could be reduced, but will need you to tell me what the key points are from those sections that you believe need to be retained. That way these sections can be condensed. I will also have a look for a few maps to swap if they exist. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also keen to see this article move forward and would be happy to work with you. I am however, every concerned by the question of notability. The problem of length could be addressed by making two articles, one covering the stalemate, and the other covering the preparations for mobile warfare, including the advent of Allenby and perhaps training? I did think the front line fighting was probably part of training but links between the two articles could connect these. But this might mean both articles could be cut because neither was thought to be notable. What do you think? --Rskp (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Anotherclown, you don't mention the infobox. What issues regarding this do you see are preventing it being reinstated? --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned above in the appropriate thread. Pls see above. Anotherclown (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

On 31 May IP 190 added a notability tag to this article without discussion [19]. Whilst this was subsequently removed by the author of the article, on 01 Jun another anonymous editor, IP 202 (although possibly the same editor using a dynamic IP address), then added a proposal to merge this article with the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article [20]. This proposal was spt'd with a few cmt's above, but was never really developed. It now seems that this / these editor(s) is / are no longer taking part in the discussion. Although I believe the IP(s) editing this article have been acting in good faith and have made some constructive improvements it is also my opinion that this question now needs to be addressed in order to move this article fwd. The IP raised a few valid points above, namely the question of whether this topic could be condensed and covered elsewhere more economically, or if it meets our notability guidelines for its own article. Regardless, from my understanding of the admittedly very brief discussion here, and that which occurred at ANI, there does seem to be a developing consensus that this topic is suitable to be covered in Wikipedia and probably could use an article of its own (albeit a much smaller one). I for one could live with either; however, given that this article does cover a six month period of a major land campaign during a world war I don't think it inappropriate to have its own article and would happily see it continue to be covered this way. As such, unless another editor disagrees—and is actually prepared to discuss their reasons for doing so—I propose removing the merge proposal tag. Anotherclown (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Anotherclown. --Rskp (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

However, without the infobox, editors are going to have difficulty assessing this article's importance. When the merge tag was added the infobox was still with the article. It has since been cut twice, once by Jim Sweeney here [21] which I reinstated here [22], and again by Anotherclown here [23]. Without the info box it will be extremely difficult to access this article's notability. My appeal to the Administrators regarding the disruptive edits of this article fell on deaf ears, but the affects of those cuts have left it in tatters. Does anyone care? --Rskp (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the merge tag as discussed above. Would ask that we not fragment the discussion about the infobox by discussing under this heading though. Will address above. Anotherclown (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sections suggested for reduction

IOT focus this article I would considered the fol:

• merge the sub-headings in the "Conditions section" into just a few and condense. Is there really a requirement for 18 paragraphs here? I agree the conditions during which the campaign was fought are important but this would seem to be undue weight.
• Removal of quotes of little value. For instance:
  • "If we had been asked yesterday, 'Is it possible to discover a worse situated, a more inconvenient, or a more unholy spot in the world than your late rest camp in Macedonia?' We would have unanimously replied 'No, it cannot be possible.' Today, however, we have not only changed our minds, but we have actually found this spot, and more than that, we are encamped upon it.
  • "Everyone digging funk holes all day, as ordered. Each man and his mate dig a two–man hole in the ground about four feet deep, in which to sleep or run to if the bombing is too close." - too much detail.
  • "Every officer & man including transport, cooks, batmen etc. will immediately saddle–up, nosebags will be filled and tied on saddle, men will put on equipment and be ready to move at a moments notice, ... vehicle drivers will harness horses but not inspan ... In [the] event of [an] attack in force ... [the brigade will] proceed to Bir el Esani." - detail again.
  • "I don't think that Michael could have been more happily placed, than in "T" Battery; and I like your idea of applying his money for the Battery's benefit. You and I will always feel a connection with it. What a wonderful and beautiful thought yours is; that Father Knapp is with our boy, and helping him to enter bravely on his new life. Oh, my brave Darling, you are the mother of a hero. Your son could have been no other. The letter he wrote to you, on the 28th of July, is a mirror in which his whole character is shown. Devotion to his work, Humour, dry but never cynical. Joy in all aspects of life. Wide interest in literature, sport, politics. All unaffected and honest. And, through all, beams his love for you. So, too, my own, your wide sympathy and thoughts for others cheers us all. God Bless you my Mabel." - this quote, whilst an providing an interesting insight into Allenby's life is really not the right tone for an encyclopedic entry in my opinion.
  • The "Stretcher bearers" section is also too detailed. Would delete the quote here too.
  • There are others. Would suggest deleting or summarizing in your own words nearly all of them.
• Far too much detail here: "In addition to 67 water carts, each mounted brigade required the following transport, 4 Brigade Headquarters transport wagons = 413 Regimental transport wagons per regiment = 3920 Machine Gun Squadron transport wagons = 204 Brigade Field Ambulance transport wagons = 4.[275][276] These wagons were deployed in three echelons. "A" Echelon commanded by an officer, consisted of 21 Limbers and 4 water carts 2 Limbers for Brigade Headquarters = 22 Limbers and 1 water cart per Regiment = 913 Limbers and 1 water cart for Machine Gun Squadron = 14. This transport carried small arms ammunition, technical stores and water and was to travel in the rear of their brigade or brigade group, instead of following their units as in the past.[275][276] "B 1" Echelon commanded by the Brigade Transport Officer consisted of 18 Limbers – 1 Limber Brigade Headquarters = 14 Limbers per Regiment = 123 Limbers Machine Gun Squadron = 32 Limbers Brigade Field Ambulance = 2. This transport carried all supplies.[275][276] "B 2" Echelon commanded by an officer consisted of 24 wagons 1 GS Wagon Brigade Headquarters = 15 GS wagons and 1 Limber per Regiment = 181 GS wagon and 2 Limbers Machine Guns Squadron = 3. These GS wagons were to transport all baggage.2 GS wagons Brigade Field Ambulance = 2.[275][276]" - I'm really not sure why this level of detail is required. Would suggest the entire section could be deleted, or at least summarized in a single sentence.
• The notes section is extensive and probably also overly detailed. For instance some are in excess of 160 words + to discuss a photograph.
• Will provide more suggestions when these have been worked through. Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding language precision

I question the accuracy of this statement: "Murray had suggested to the Australian government in June 1917, the formation of a 5th Light Horse Brigade, but the Australian Defence Department's volunteer recruitments policy, could not attract sufficient recruits at that time, to make this possible. [Downes 1938 p. 628]". Specifically "Australian Defence Department's volunteer recruitments policy". The introduction of conscription for overseas service was defeated in two separate national referenda so it wasn't so much a choice of the Defence Department, or even the government, rather it was national policy. The punctuation here is also problematic (too many commas in the wrong places). Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Anotherclown but I don't see your point about "the Australian Defence Department's volunteer recruitments policy, could not attract sufficient recruits at that time, to make this possible." It seems perfectly clear to me. --Rskp (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

My point is your language is imprecise. The statement implies the Department of Defence made the policy, it didn't. It merely applied national policy over which it had no control. (Not to mention the fact that you don't even use the correct name for the organisation, its the "Department of Defence" not "Defence Department"). It would be more correct to say "Australia's policy of volunteer recruitment". Anotherclown (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. --Rskp (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Reference to 'Defence Department' cut and note rejigged. --Rskp (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of coastal bivouac section

I note this section has now been restored [24] after being deleted by (a now banned) IP here [25]. But really how is it notable - or even remotely interesting?

"After accompanying two Royal Engineer messmates on a reconnaissance on Good Friday 6 April 1917, between the first and second battles, Joseph W. McPherson, an officer in the Egyptian Camel Transport Corps in contrast to the conditions in most areas, described an idyllic bivouac."

I propose it be removed as it is just pointless padding to an article that is already too long for the subject. This is (meant to be) an encyclopedia not a collection of trivia.

I met my mates for a steak and a non-alcoholic beer at TGI Fridays in Kandahar once after a particularly interesting 20-hour trip down Route Bear the night before. In comparison to the rocket attacks, suicide bombers, small arms, and the IEDs it was an "idyllic bivouac" too, doesn't make it notable though. We will remember it until the day of our passing but I'm sure the average Wikipedia reader isn't even remotely interested. Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope that was rare. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to note the IP editor was blocked as they were using an open proxy. They are blocked as soon as they are identified per WP:PROXY. Not for any infringement etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• This information is notable because most of the information about conditions draws a pretty harsh view. The quote in question is the only one which describes a nice part and therefore adds balance to the article. Take it away and the article will be the poorer, and not as neutral as it could be. --Rskp (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know how many times I can reword this to try and get you to understand it so I will try once more and then I'm out as I'm rapidly continuing my slide towards insanity (no idea how Jim does it I really don't). This is an encyclopedia so our standards of inclusion are more academic than that accepted in popular non-fiction. A non-notable "bivouac" (or "camping trip" as the IP called it) doesn't meet the threshold req'd for inclusion even if it is "interesting" or illustrates some esoteric point of yours (show me a single credible encyclopedia that would include this and I'll shut up). Its pointless trivia and its got nothing to do with neutrality (I'm now entirely convinced you either don't understand what this means or you just claim to misunderstand as part of some exercise in circular logic - particularly effective it seems though). Anotherclown (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

At the moment this article is just I think B-class. Certainly as such it needs a lot of work and as soon as I get a moment I will be addressing the problems you raise. --Rskp (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So if you don't have time to deal with it do you object to me deleting it? Anotherclown (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be so long replying Anotherclown. Moving the info to see if it will fix in a meaningful way regarding contrasts in conditions. What do you think? --Rskp (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Forgot about this one until now - yes that looks fine to me now (for what its worth). Anotherclown (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Needs clarification

As the clarify tag was removed without any change in text. Can this statement be clarified After a feint attack with dummy figures, which diverted Ottoman fire opposite Umbrella Hill - How did dummy figures carry out an attack feint or not. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This gets sillier by the minute - this episode is probably actually worthy of greater coverage in my opinion, so agree with Jim that it should be clarified. We currently have a section dedicated to a picnic (as above), but the same editor that insists that this part should remain in the article refuses to expand on a (seemingly) far more notable operational incident / deception. Anotherclown (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

As I wasn't there, and the source quoted doesn't give any more info, it may be necessary for interested editors, to do some research themselves and provide the information they require. --Rskp (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Shellal

This article refers to a location called Shellal, just south of Gaza. The link, however is for Shellal in Egypt. Does anyone know what this location is called today?--Nis Hoff (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. That link should be changed, possibly to Eshkol National Park, Israel, where the importance in WWI of this Shellal, on the HaBesor Stream, is briefly mentioned. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of past perfect "had"

Article: "After the first British defeat at Gaza in March 1917, the commander of Eastern Force, Lieutenant-General Charles Dobell, had sacked the commander . . . ." Had sacked? Past perfect refers to past action before past action. Did the editor mean, "After the first . . . , sacked . . . ." No had? (FairNPOV (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC))

"...had sacked..." seems wrong. Just "sacked". Dhtwiki (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarify typical?

Article: " the experience of the 7th Infantry Division (later part of the Eighth Army) was typical." Is typical sarcastic here? Would the article be improve by clarification: typically bad or up to standards? (FairNPOV (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC))

I assume the text that follows, which details their training and deployment, is what is being referred to. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

ablutions parades?

Should this expression be explained? (FairNPOV (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC))

Could it be completely erroneous? The phrase means nothing to me. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Vague statement might be clarified?

Article: " they understood the conditions at the front the men would be returned to, ". Are good conditions being re-established? Or does this refer to some part of the "the front" to which the men would return? Ending this string with "to", could be changed. Should it read "to which the men would return"? (FairNPOV (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)) Article: 'Preston writes, "the enemy made' — Preceding unsigned comment added by FairNPOV (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I remember that this article is based on sources that are mostly off-line, which makes it hard to clarify, sometimes. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

First word of quote is capitalized

Article: 'Preston writes, "the enemy made'. One expects The, capitalized. But if the quote is not the start of a sentence, then one expects ". . . the enemy made". Does someone know the correct mechanics here? (FairNPOV (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC))

Ellipsis points are implied here, but could legitimately be added. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

correct tense with when?

Did article mean to say, " carrying out a reconnaissance patrol, when", instead of "carried out a reconnaissance patrol, when". (FairNPOV (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC))

Where? DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You've spotted several things that could stand improvement. I suspect you could go ahead and make the change you think should be made here. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A comma is required before "and" when "and" introduces an independent clause.

Article: "regular troopers' "movements are 'heavy'[sic] and they have no snap about them."

If the quote is correct, then it contains an error in punctuation which requires a [sic]. If the editor in quoting left off a comma in the original, then the quote should be corrected to "regular troopers' "movements are 'heavy', and they have no snap about them." (FairNPOV (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC))

I think you're overthinking this. I see nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I must have prematurely removed the "sic" that was placed there, thinking that the problem was misuse of quotation marks (' followed by "..." followed by '), which I reversed. As with another instance in the article, I'd just place a [,] in the appropriate place, if it's felt to be necessary (the clauses are short and there's little chance of confusion resulting if the comma is left out, I think). Dhtwiki (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

User:PeacePeace sockpuppet comments striked/removed and noted per WP:BE, —PaleoNeonate – 23:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)