Talk:Second Battle of the Jordan/Archive 1

Archive 1

partial superficial copy edit

could benefit by an edit from someone with more military knowledge than me, I think. I erred on the side of leaving stuff alone when I wasn't sure what to do about it. Some things though, that I saw and could not fix:

• Usually you want to give someone's full title and first and last name the first time you refer to them. Last names are fine after that.

1. Thanks

• What's a punt? I am thinking a boat, but could not picture an entire unit in a row-boat. For that matter, what's a unit?

1. Punt seems to be the singular and plural??

Wikipedia doesn't seem to think so but it's hardly the last word on the subject and I have not yet looked at a dictionary. Words like that do exist in English but they are unusual. Is your source on this point Australian? I ask because of the participation of many ANZAC units, and because if you look at Punt_(boat), there seem to be varying meanings in different countries. This is a fairly minor point. We can come back to it. Elinruby (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• What's the significance of troops having 20 men? How many do they usually have?

1. Some have 25.

• I tagged a reference to the surgical station because I wasn't sure if it was the wounded or the surgical staff that moved after that.

1. Yes, got that. It was the wounded

• I tagged "bad path" because the wording is a bit jarring, but didn't know if the path was steep, or rough, or both.

1. Yes, that's how my source described but have changed it to terrible which still more or less fits the idea.

• what's a cacolet?

1. A thing that was tied onto a camel and 2 wounded could either sit or lie down, one on either side of the hump.

I put in a wikilink and will add something like this explanation, if that is ok with you. I doubt the average reader will know the word. Elinruby (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• "At about 22:00 whispering could be heard coming from the ledge, so a stone was bowled over. They were Australians who got a shock when they found that their squadron had retired nearly an hour before and quickly left." <=== requires clarification.

1. I've given it a context and reinstated the quotation marks - its a direct quote. Maybe it would be better in a quote box but it forms a part of the narrative.

• Cutting down on parentheses will improve readability.

1. I'll see what I can do.

Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your interest; will do my best to sort these things out. --Rskp (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. --Rskp (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers and your good-natured acceptance of my questions. I am going to take a second look, which may also be incomplete due to time constraints, but will perhaps make things easier for anyone who wants to do a more polished edit. Elinruby (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

further question: does Es Salt=Salt, Jordan? If so a wikilink on first reference might be nice. I did not do it myself as I am guessing, and wary of introducing errors of fact into the article. I should add that I have zero knowledge of this topic so if I *do* introduce errors despite my caution, you absolutely should change the article back. An explanation would help me figure out how to fix whatever I was trying to fix without the error. Perhaps more questions later as I go. Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind! just realized that this was already done and that I had not been looking at a first reference. My mistake. Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• going to add a wikilink for Chaytor as I don't think the one in the box counts as a first reference; the reason I am here, though, is that J. Shea does not seem to have a page. Perhaps this should be a red link. Not sure. He does definitely need a first name and a title though... Elinruby (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• "and a further attack on Shunet Nimrin by Chetwode concentrated their attention on this area. The Desert Mounted Corps was very shortly afterwards ordered to once again attack the German and Ottoman garrisons at Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt with a view to eventually capturing Amman."

couple of things here:

• this is the first we have heard of Chetwode in this article. We need to know his first name and his title and which force he (presumably) commanded.

found the name and the title; not sure whether he was commanding the Desert Mounted Corps, so this is still a question for you. Oh, and shouldn't he be in the box?

Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Chetwode commanded the infantry corps and Chauvel commanded the Desert Mounted Corps --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

the article on Harry Chavel seems to imply *he* was in command of the desert Mounted Corps, so please check these statements for accuracy; I am guessing. Carefully, but guessing. In case of doubt, please remove the unit mention. Elinruby (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think I saw somewhere, not in this article, that the Desert Mounted Corps was Australian, but could you clarify? Just the one word before the wikilink (kudos for that) would be good.

• • Its possible but it was not totally Australian; there were British Yeomanry and New Zealand Mounted Rifle and after the Indian cavalry arrived before Megiddo Indian Cavalry and Lancers all in Desert Mounted Corps.

Not really, right? ANZAC, is the impression I am getting from that article. Also a question for you. Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I use Anzac because ANZAC really does only refer to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which was only in existence before and during the Gallipoli campaign. The 1st and 2nd and possibly the 3rd Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade served on Gallipoli in the ANZAC and afterwards formed the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division in April 1916. This division has been referred to in full, as the A and NZ Mounted Div, as the Anzac Mounted Div and the full capitals, which I think, although its the name of the wiki article, is perhaps not quite right.--Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright. A distinction that I had no clue about. We'll use Anzac if you think it's most accurate. Not in to edit right now; just saw that you had done some things and am looking. I asked about this because I was trying to do the identify-on-first mention things I was talking about earlier. Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Imperial? At sea here. You're the local subject matter expert. Let me know. Elinruby (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• who ordered them? Also a date would be better than "very shortly afterwards", which could be hours or minutes but probably is not because the prior reference to time is in weeks.

• • • Sorry I missed this query. who ordered them - Allenby but not mentioning him in intro. He's there in the infobox. Tightened period of time. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's what they were called - made up of Australians, New Zealanders and British personnel.--Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

so "Imperial" would be correct?

• • • Yes. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• "with a view to" kinda vague also. Maybe you could have a separate sentence, i.e. So-and-so wanted to (what exactly? give cover to an assault on Amman? have them move on from there?)Elinruby (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, intentionally so as it may have been just a carrot Allenby waved in front of Chauvel to get his attention. In any case Allenby knew full well that his main attack (Megiddo) would not happen for some months until all the reinforcements had been bedded down. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• added XX Corps based on something that was further down the page. Please check for accuracy. 02:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Not sure where you mean. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

this would be another attempt to identify commanders by mentioning their unit. Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • Sorry, still don't know where in the article you mean. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• added Australian Mounted Corps for much the same reason; please check. Perhaps he was in command of this unit plus some others -- they seem to have done that a lot. Elinruby (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • No longer in article. Its wrong the Australian Mounted was a Division. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

probably my mistake. I'll check when I come back. Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• 3rd paragraph, 1st section: "A German and Ottoman force attacked and drove in the northern flank guard in the Jordan Valley, threatening the capture of one mounted and five light horse brigades in the hills, defending Es Salt and attacking the rear of the Shunet Nimrin position."

This has much less detail (names etc) than the prior sentences, which strikes a bit oddly, but really, perhaps this is the better way to go than in the prior sentences, as to my understanding the article should start with a summary. So perhaps the detail from the other sentences should move down. It's a bit odd to have both approaches in the same paragraph. 01:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• The second paragraph says the Camel Corps Desert Mounted Corps was involved but the third does not ==> "and" or "also" needed maybe? Elinruby (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the intro is a mess. Will get back to this. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Dates: Emphasizing this to make sure you see it. I changed some from something like the 1 April to April 1st, and later some others that just said 1 April. I should have looked at the style manual first -- 1 April is apparently quite acceptable. I will change these back as I see them and so should you if I miss any. Sorry about that. No "the" however, ok? Elinruby (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Not a problem. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Second section:

• "The Ottoman Empire was again forced to retreat from Jericho by General Edmund Allenby's force in February 1918" -- did I miss a prior mention of a retreat from Jericho? Or is this obvious when you know the geography?

• • No it wasn't a second retreat back from Jericho but a continuation of the retreats the Ottomans made back from Beersheba, Mughar Ridge, Jerusalem and finally Jericho. Have clarified it. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I changed frontier to border as I think this is what you meant, but please double-check.

Elinruby (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I've changed it back to frontier as that's how its most often known. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• "As Shea's force moved forward, Shunet Nimrin on the main road and the town of Es Salt were captured by the infantry and mounted force." -- By Shea? unclear. Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • This section is describing the first transjordan. Chauvel wasn't involved and Shea led the force to Es Salt via Shunet Nimrin. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So was he the one that captured Es Salt?

• • • There was no real fighting for Es Salt the first time. Shea was the commander of the infantry who occupied Es Salt and Chaytor commanded the mounted force who attacked Amman. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Prelude section:

• Added Chauvel's name, rank and unit based on the wikilinked article. It calls him a General, but look at the bio around 1917. There is no mention of 1918 this offensive (and maybe there should be). But the Battle of Megiddo (1918) article has him as a Lieutenant General of the Desert Mounted Corps later in 1918. In any event, there is an issue of fact here that I'd like you to check with your sources if you can. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • You are right he was not a full General during WW1. His bio article is a little uneven in parts. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I can't tell if Chauvel could not use the road because of its condition or because of the enemy forces who were in the area still (right?) Elinruby (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Chauvel couldn't use this road because by the 2nd Transjordan the Ottomans were heavily entrenched across it (the 5,000 or 8,000). I think I've had a go at this - about half an hour ago. But I'm getting a bit wooly. Look I must say in passing that you have done a fantastic job on this article. Its not an easy area for anyone with the 1st and 2nd transjordan attacks taking place over similar areas by similar forces and within weeks of one another. Not to mention all the weird names. Thank you very much for your time and effort. I really appreciate your work. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Problems section: Shunet Nimrin 5000-strong here, 8000-strong above, no explanation given of the discepancy. That many casualties?? Elinruby (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • No that was the force blocking the road; the difference is in the references. Not sure what to do about this. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ali Fuad Bey = Ali Fuat Cabesoy?

• • I did spend some time of this one and thought I had got the right person but these names can be very difficult. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

np. The thing was, I wanted to add a wikilink. Fuad/Fuat could be transliteration. I think Bey is a title. Maybe he later became a Cabesoy, whatever that is. Anyway, I ask because if it's the same man, there is an article about him. Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • Then go for it. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture caption: are these German/Ottoman prisoners? (if you will allow me to continue to speak for the truly ignorant) Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Point taken - have amended captions. Its you who I write for - I don't want these articles to be so full of jargon or edited so finely that the general reader is turned off. Thanks once again for your interest and first class copyediting. --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your interest. --Rskp (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

question re first sentence

"Officially known by the British as the Second attack at Es Salt[1] and by the Germans as the Second Battle of the Jordan, the Second Transjordan attack on Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt was fought between 30 April and 4 May 1918 in the Middle East during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I.

you say the British call it one thing and the Germans call it another, but you call it a third...I am not saying you are wrong to do so, but it does lead to the question of whose terminology it is that you are using. Elinruby (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Because both official names of this battle/action are ambiguous I followed the guidelines for an article name by making it descriptive so that it is clearly differentiated from the first Transjordan attack on Amman, and the passage of the Jordan.--Rskp (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If the official names are ambiguous, do we need disambiguation to the similarly named battles? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I really don't know how best to approach this. At the time I created the two Transjordan articles this issue was not something I anticipated. --Rskp (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

redirect from Action of Berukin

This action is described on the Sinai and Palestine Campaign#Action of Berukin 9–11 April article. There are only two mentions of Berukin in this article, so the redirect is meaningless and misleading. Can this be changed? --Rskp (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved to requested title, but (a) I did create a redirect from the requested title and also (b) removed the unneeded qualifier (1918) from the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Second Transjordan attack on Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt (1918) → Second Battle of the Jordan – The term "Transjordan" in the current title is out of place. Any attack on the places mentioned would be "Transjordan". This attack was British, but the battle has a more elegant name already in use. Srnec (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Oppose. The current title is recognisable, it clearly, concisely and precisely describes this military attack by the EEF. This title is consistent with two other articles which also deal with military operations in the area across the Jordan River. The year has been added to avoid confusion and locate all three articles within World War I. --Rskp (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

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

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

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

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

If Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt are not mentioned it will be very easy for readers to mix these operation up with previous and subsequent attacks which occurred miles away but only a few weeks previous and months later. Further, if these places are not mentioned in the title of the article, then the main locations where fighting took place over a period of days; the precise identification of these engagements, are not reflected in the article's title. --Rskp (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the proposed title is an offical term, and unambiguous, I don't see why this level description is required. After all, if we don't have an article titled First Transjordan attack on Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt (1918), then we could just as easily be confusing readers. (We can always add a date after my proposed title to be clearer.) Srnec (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The dates of these operations are messy; the first one taking place at the end of March and into April, the second one began at the end of April and finished in May. The first two Transjordan articles describe fighting in two completely different areas; the first at Amman which is miles away from the second which was mainly against Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt and the third Transjordan article describes operations in all these areas plus Ziza. --Rskp (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

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

The above move was closed before I got a chance to respond to Rskp, but let me just say that we are talking about naming, not describing a conflict. This point seems to be missed by Rskp. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the point they are trying to make is that it doesn't make sense to name the conflict after a river, since no action took place there. I believe the target of the mission was actually Amman, or rather, to destroy a viaduct and a tunnel on the railroad passing though Amman. Neotarf (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Move review request

The page for First Transjordan attack on Amman, with naming considerations similar to the ones for this article, is currently the subject of a move closure review. One possible outcome of the review is to reopen the move request for continued discussion. Those interested may participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Move review#Talk:First Transjordan attack on Amman. Neotarf (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious Lawrence quote

Thanks to Jim Sweeney's attachment of a dubious tag [20:40, 19 December 2012‎ Jim Sweeney (talk | contribs)‎ . . (156,423 bytes) ‪(+33)‬‎ . . (→‎‪Aftermath: DUBIOUS‬) (undo)] when he pointed out quite correctly that Smuts was never CIGS, I edited the section of the article to cut out the reference to Smuts here [04:02, 22 December 2012‎ RoslynSKP (talk | contribs)‎ . . (156,339 bytes) ‪(-7)‬‎ . . (→‎‪Aftermath: Lawrence has been proved before to be a questionable source, I'm grateful for pointout out this weekness‬) (undo) ] in the process quite incorrectly blaming Lawrence [04:03, 22 December 2012‎ RoslynSKP (talk | contribs)‎ . . (156,287 bytes) ‪(-52)‬‎ . . (→‎‪Aftermath: dubious reference made to Smuts by Lawrence cut‬) (undo)]. My thanks to [05:11, 22 December 2012‎ HLGallon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (156,451 bytes) ‪(+85)‬‎ . . (→‎‪Aftermath: Corrected failed verification; Lawrence made no mention of CIGS (Robertson). He did mention the "Smuts agreement".‬)] for pointing out both my errors. My first error in thinking Smuts was SIGS, and my second error overlooking the possibility that he was indeed mentioned by Lawrence. Thanks for keeping such a close eye on my work. --Rskp (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Errors

• The German 146th Regiments Battalions would be 1st 2nd or 3rd or I/146, II/146 etc. 3/32nd, 1/58th, 1/150th is 3rd Battalion 32nd Regiment, 1st Battalion 58th Regiment and 1st Battalion 150th Regiment. Also the 146th Regiment arrived in Palestine end of May/June. per Erickson 2001 p. 233 Its also written as 1st Battalion 146th Regiment in the Preparations for a counter-attack section.

A German infantry regiment had three battalions designated I, II, III, each battalion had four companies 1st-4th in I Battalion, 5th-8th in II Battalion, 9th-12th in III Battalion the 13th company was the MG Company. Two regiments to a brigade two brigades to a division. Source The German Army in World War I: 1914-15 page 7. See also List of Imperial German infantry regiments which gives an indication that the 32nd 58th and 150th regiments only served on the Western Front.

• All sources do not always agree. The Official History of the Great War Based on Official Documents by Direction of the Historical Section of the Committee of Imperial Defence Military Operations Egypt & Palestine from June 1917 to the End of the War by Cyril Falls and A. F. Becke published in London by the British Government in 1930 Volume 2 Part II, p. 657 says the 146th Regiment etc was part of the enemy force engaged in the Second Transjordan attack.--Rskp (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Several times George Barrow (Indian Army officer) is named as the GOC of 6oth Division we know that Shea commanded that division. Barrow only commanded the Yeomanry Mounted and then the 4th Cavalry Divisions. Source Powles Desert Mounted Corps pages 331-336 and others.
  • Barrow was confused with Shea and the problem discussed in the note devoted to this anomaly, before Jim Sweeney point it out. Barrow was mentioned in the body of the article and again in the note. This is the several times Jim Sweeney refers to. --Rskp (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the Attacking force section paragraph starting The Australian Mounted Division crossed its claimed that the 4th LH Brigade was supported by at least two Royal Horse Artillery batteries. This contradicts the sources and the text just prior when its written that the Nottinghamshire (Notts) RHA and A and B batteries HAC were with the 4th LH Brigade.
  • All sources do not always agree in every detail. --Rskp (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• There was no such formation as the Hong Kong Mountain Artillery Battery it was the the Hong Kong and Singapore Mountain Artillery Battery. Powles page 333. Sometimes it given its correct full name others times just as the Hong Kong Artillery Battery.
  • The source only talks about the Hong Kong Mountain Battery. I know the whole battery is the Hong Kong and Singapore Mountain Battery but when only the Hong Kong Mountain Battery is mentioned, I can't make things up. If you have to put Singapore into it get a reference. --Rskp (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cossak posts there were no Russians involved in this battle, if this is a type of tactic it needs to be made clear and the link removed.

Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• • The British historian refers to the Ottoman defences across the floor of the Jordan Valley as "Coassk posts." I don't know what these are nor do I know what else to call them as Falls gives no description of them other than that they are manned by cavalry. Either "Cossak posts remain or the fact that they were there will be cut. --Rskp (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• If the 146th Regiment is mentioned by the official historian why have you included the other regiments 3/32nd, 1/58th, 1/150th ?
• So the historians were wrong when the state Barrow commanded 60th Division (not always correct then)
• Sources do agree on the composition of the artillery really which ones?
• If you know the full name of the battery, which is sometimes used in this article, then it should be used all the time. We do not just copy and paste but write it in our own words.
• If you do not know what Cossack posts are use another tern observation would fit the context. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)