Talk:Battle of Nablus (1918)

Chaytor's Force description by Jukes
The description of Chaytor's Force as a "small mobile force" has been disputed on Talk:Battle of Megiddo (1918) page where the large scope of responsibilities under taken by the Force is recognised and suggests "corps-sized detachment" as Chaytor's Force operated quite independently from Desert Mounted Corps. --Rskp (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * However a small mobile force is referenced as well as other descriptions of Chaytor's Force. A corps sized detachment is wrong size wise and there is no reference that it was the size of a corps. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Have cut the dubious reference and unnecessary detail. --Rskp (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

11,000 or 12,500 in Chaytor's Force?
Discussion between Jim Sweeney and RoslynSKP moved from the article as its getting long and involved:


 * ANZAC WAR DIARY says 8,000 and 3,000 =11,000 and 500 Egyptians (Labour Corps not part of the force).


 * The 500 Egyptians should be counted because they were part of the Egyptian Camel Transport Corps. These figures are for the night of 28/29 September AFTER THEIR CAMPAIGN HAD ENDED. To get a figure for Chaytor's Force you must add 126 casualties and the 1,051 sick on the last page of the Anzac War Diary. The figures for the casualties and sick from the 20th Infantry Brigade and the four infantry battalions are not given.


 * The sick still had to be fed the 1,051 is part of the 11,000 rations indented for.


 * How can they be, by 28/29 September most would be on their way back from Amman to Jerusalem and on to Kantara, only a the most recent sick would still be with the division's medical units. --Rskp (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is WP:SYNTH there is no evidence the sick were evacuated to Amman or Jerusalem. All we know for certain is that the ration strength was 11,000. The sick would have remained with their units or with the divisions field ambulances, the same sick as recorded in the previous months. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We also know for certain that 126 casualties and 1,051 sick were lost to the Anzac Mounted Division during the month of September; the totals are stated on 30 September. That is NOT WP:SYNTH --Rskp (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not know the sick were lost to the division that is WP:SYNTH, what they reported sick with is not recorded, it could have been anything from a common cold to malaria. We also do not know if any were evacuated, the report for the previous month also shows over 1,200 reported sick, 1,370 in July, 670 in June what it does not reveal is how long they were sick for one day or 30 days. The facts are with two references the force consisted of 11,000 men. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These are not "reported sick" these are sick. As the article descirbes, in September 1918 when the Spanish Flu and malignant malaria were rife "a common cold" would have been unusual. Please read the article and study the stats included, before making fanciful assumptions. --Rskp (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone who goes sick in the armed forces reports sick, what fanciful assumptions are you referring to. I have not assumed anything read what I typed.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Populations living on the battlefields
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) 07:23, 14 October 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) 00:42, 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) 07:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your personal ideas and interpretations are always interesting Jim Sweeney. In this case the article has already been assessed with the populations on the battlefield included, as a Good Article by an experienced, independent and knowledgeable editor. The information in its discreet subsection, while it may not be particularly of interest to those with narrowly military concerns, may be of considerable interest to more general readers. Why not let them have the opportunity to read this information? Those who are not interested in the population living on the battlefield can go straight to the other bits that interest them. --Rskp (talk) 02:33, 16 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)
 * Yes, thank you for your work Blackmane. However, you did not do the GA review so your comments should be seen in that light. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As this discussion is over several articles consolidated at Talk:Battle of Sharon (1918) can all further comments be added there .Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion should be consolidated here. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This will be my last comment here, as obviously the opinions of a mere copy editor is neither needed nor appreciated. I had seen that Jim Sweeney had beat me to the punch in requesting the reviewer's opinion, a call which I have furthered. I will be taking this page and the article off my list. Blackmane (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You two can discuss the issue here. No need to edit war. I've protected the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The following information, which was the subject of the above discussion, has been cut from this article
The inhabitants of the region, from Beersheba to Jericho, varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. The population was mainly Arab of the Sunni branch of Islam, with some Jewish colonists and Christians. At Nablus, they were almost exclusively Moslems excepting the less than 200 members of the Samaritan sect of original Jews. To the east of the Jordan Valley in the Es Salt district were Syrian and Greek Orthodox Christians, and near Amman, Circassians and Turkmans. [British Army Handbook 9/4/18 p. 61] --Rskp (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit War and loss of GA status
It is important that this article not be censored, by Jim Sweeney cutting information which is relevant, contemporary and well cited. This is not unnecessary information about the battle but the last subsection of the Background section of the article. This is the right place for the identification of the people living on the battlefield at the time of the battle. Although it is not known whether these people were involved in the fighting, their identity should be available to readers. This article describes another example of the great empires fighting over other people's country and those peoples should be known. --Rskp (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note, the article has not lost GA status yet. If you two don't stop soon, though... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The GA icon has been removed. --Rskp (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The icon has been removed. It hasn't undergone a Good article reassessment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I reinserted the GA icon on 16 November. --Rskp (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus was reached to remove such sections as off focus and not relevant to the battle. They played no part in the battle neither helped or hindered either side. Its not censorship if you believe its so important for future generations to know who lived in Palestine 100 years ago, start the Population of Palestine 1910-1920 article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And so, after all that the following few words have been cut :

The inhabitants of the region, from Beersheba to Jericho, varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. The population was mainly Arab of the Sunni branch of Islam, with some Jewish colonists and Christians. At Nablus, they were almost exclusively Moslems excepting the less than 200 members of the Samaritan sect of original Jews. To the east of the Jordan Valley in the Es Salt district were Syrian and Greek Orthodox Christians, and near Amman, Circassians and Turkmans.

Wikipedia is the poorer. --Rskp (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dubious source
The author of the Long Long Trail for Family Historians claims the 75th Division did not take part in the Battle of Nablus. --Rskp (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Nablus (1918). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321175713/https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1338 to http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1338

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)