Talk:First Battle of the Jordan/Archive 1

Original research
This article uses several unpublished war diaries, and using them for references is original research. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of the war diaries in this article is restricted to notes. There is no interpretation of the diaries and the use is within Wikipedia guidelines as the Battle of Mughar Ridge article which has been awarded a GA has also been targeted by Jim Sweeney. For the benefit of readers, the following appears on the talk page of that article - I'm not disagreeing that they're primary sources, but they are published primary sources, and there's no outright prohibition on them. I think that the OR requirement we need to judge them against is that "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". I'm not a great fan of this part of our policy, I'll admit, but in terms of making an OR claim, we'll need to point to where there is such interpretation, analysis or synthetic claim, rather than just noting that its a primary source. Many of them are also cited alongside secondary sources in this article to support particular points - I think rather than a general tag, it might be useful to ID which points of use are of particular concern. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I failed to sign this post, yesterday --Rskp (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Per RS noticeboard - consider them reliable for individual experiences, but not for most factual information. Also some have been accepted at FAC, so caution in use required. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

4th (ANZAC) Battalion and other unit names
There is no need to cite what is obvious and linked, which ones do you believe are false ? and Although the recent renaming of the 4th Battalion, Imperial Camel Corps Brigade is supported by a reputable web site source, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps would not have formed a camel battalion. You need to get away from ANZAC being only the name of the corps, every unit that had a mixture of Australian and New Zealand toops used ANZAC. As you should be well aware of, as the links to the AWM site have been used several times.
 * ANZAC Mounted Division http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_13621.asp
 * 4th (ANZAC) Battalion ICC http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_13624.asp
 * I ANZAC Corps  despite the repetition of the word Corps in their name
 * II ANZAC Corps http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/anzac/acronym/
 * 1st (ANZAC) Wireless Signal Squadron http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/anzac/acronym/
 * II ANZAC (XXII Corps) Mounted Regiment http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_20855.asp

Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not a question of belief but one of sources. The sources I've read and used to edit this page do not use ANZAC to describe the 4th Battalion. Jim Sweeney you need to understand that the acronym ANZAC does not refer to every Australian and New Zealand unit in the first world war, just to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. --Rskp (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See above your claim is not supported by the authority the Australian War Memorial. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * New Zealand source also uses 4th (ANZAC) Battalion . Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But the literature cited in this article does not. That is why I have added a note which acknowledges that fact.--Rskp (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it does citation 77 to the Australian War Memorial cites the name. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Let me rephrase as a result of your added citation. Almost all the literature cited in this article does not refer to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps forming a battalion in the ICCB, for the simple reason that an army corps is much bigger than a battalion and could not fit in to a battalion of camels. I think we may be talking here about camels and eyes of needles :) [Matthew 19:24] --Rskp (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have fixated on the ANZAC Corps, yes I agree the corps did not for this battalion. It was formed from Australian and New Zealand troops and therefore given the name ANZAC. Like every other mixed Australian and New Zealand formation in World War's I and II and there was even talk of forming an ANZAC brigade in the Vietnam War. It has nothing to do with the separate corps, its all about the make up of the battalion etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep your posts out of the personal arena. You have changed the name of the 4th Battalion on the basis of one web site. I admire your daring but again caution you to do some more solid research before you go changing names of units like this one. Talk of forming brigades with inaccurate acronyms and a battalion being known as the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps battalion are both problematic. Please stop attempting to proliferating the inappropriate use of this acronym. --Rskp (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its named so in more than one reliable sources, I did not make it up, see the parent article Imperial Camel Corps. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is another that you should appreciate its the 4th ANZAC Battalion war diary. Also note they use ANZAC.   Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But as the discussion on MILHIST regarding the acronym and the Anzac Mounted Division makes clear here the use of the acronym is wrong when it is not describing the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. --Rskp (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No it does not say that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Singapore mountain battery
How we going to sort this, the Hong Kong and Singapore mountain battery was a part of the British Indian Army but also part of the Royal Garrison Artillery of the Royal Artillery not the Royal Indian Artillery. Any way apart from the name there seems to be no link with Hong Kong or Singapore. Either its British Army or Indian Army ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * RGA was British Army. When the British directly administered Hong Kong and Singapore after the dissolution of the British East India Company, they imported outsiders, especially Sikhs, to form the Police forces and some military units in the new posessions. The military units would have been administered at first by the Colonial Office, but eventually the British Army took them over. The RGA was formed at first to control heavy artillery in coastal fortifications in Britain, but the HK & S Battery obviously formed part of the garrison of those places, even if composed of mainly Indian personnel (though also some "Portuguese, Chinese and others"). I reverted your edit because it read something like "...the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade with its attached artillery, the 10th Heavy Battery RGA etc." By attached artillery, you no doubt meant the HK & S Battery, but the wording suggested that it meant the 10th Heavies only, removing the unfortunate HK & S battery from the order of battle altogether. I hope you and RoslynSKP can sort things out amicably, and accurately.HLGallon (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No that's Ok, I was looking at Hong Kong and Singapore to the inf box. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No further comments so deleted HK and Singapore and countries in the inf box, the above suggest they were part of the British or Indian army. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From British Troops in China 1939: "The Hong Kong Singapore Battalion Royal Garrison Artillery was formed in 1903 as a local enlisted regiment of artillery". As some sites show personnel enlisting before that date, independent companies must have existed before the battalion was formed. See also Great War Forum and Indian personnel service records, both of which state that the battalion had two companies of Moslems from northern India, one of Sikhs and one of "mixed castes, Portuguese and Chinese", which conjures visions of dockside riff-raff. By 1903, there must have been second- and third-generation communities of Indians and Sikhs in those two ports.HLGallon (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As these batteries were formed within what were at the time, two British colonies they more properly should be listed in the infobox under British Empire like the other colonies and dominions. --Rskp (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No they were part of the British Indian Army which the above makes clear, see here. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Their personnel (not "personal" as the site spells it, which doesn't improve my confidence in it) were drawn from the Indian Army, but the Royal Garrison Artillery was part of the British Army. HLGallon (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way were they a Hong Kong or Singapore unit. It would seem wrong to put those countries in the inf box as being represented in the battles or campaigns by the battery. Its either British or Indian army. Precedent for British would seem very much like the British Gurkhas, we do not list Nepal in the inf box when they have been used. But at the time the British Indian Army, was their parent army. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Judging by the name, this battery was formed jointly by Hong Kong and Singapore. Does that not imply that it was established in the then colonies of Singapore and Hong Kong, like the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade was established in the dominion of New Zealand? Its my understanding that the British India Army had a wide area of interest including Mesopotamia so maybe this extended as far east as Hong Kong and Singapore. But I'm not sure why it important to decide if British Army or British India Army personnel served in the battery. Yes, good point about the Gurkhas. I think its important to add as much info as possible to these infoboxes. For that reason I will again undo Jim Sweeney's cutting the battery from the infobox. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * HLGallon regarding the spelling of personnel I am at a loss as my search of the article could not find 'personal'. Could you please let me know where this error is so that I can correct it. --Rskp (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From the NZ history site, "Despite their unit title, the battery's personal [sic] were in fact drawn from the Indian Army." This isn't Wikipedia's fault. I would remove the Hong Kong and Singapore flags from the info box. Basing their inclusion on the name of the unit is superficial reasoning. The battery was formed from Indian personnel for the defence of those possessions, not from those possessions (with the proviso that some personnel may have been locally recruited from minority communities such as Portuguese or second- and subsequent generations of Sikh and other immigrant communities, though this is a guess on my part and hence OR). HLGallon (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the spelling error, I thought you were referring to the 1st Transjordan article. It seems the consensus is to cut Hong Kong and Singapore flags. Will do. --Rskp (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy violations
Putting copy violations in quotes is still a violation. Your not quoting someone just copying the book text. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jim Sweeney, its perfectly acceptable to quote directly from books, so long as they are in quotation marks and don't take up the whole of an article and are properly sourced. It appears it acceptable on Wikipedia to copy substantial amounts of material from the work of one editor and create a whole new article based on the other editor's work. Bit lazy though, don't you think? But I'm now a bit worried, your claim the Anzac Mounted Division report was copied was quite incorrect, so how accurate are you regarding Powles supposed direct quotes? --Rskp (talk) 00:30, 15 February 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 proposed title; redirect created and unneeded qualifier removed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918) → First Battle of the Jordan – The term "Transjordan" in the current title is out of place. Any attack on Amman would be "Transjordan". This attack was British, but we don't need to go further than the elegant name given the battle, I believe, by the Ottomans themselves. 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  or  , 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. The 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) 04:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I would support something similar to "Battle of Amman (1918)" or "First British raid on Amman (1918). Sources do not agree on a name. This source from Google Books refers to "First Battle of Amman" and "Second Battle of Amman". This one refers to "Battle of Amman (1918)", first British raid and second British raid. In this it is "the first Transjordan raid" and "the second Transjordan raid". Here it is a "great British expedition north" with "two previous expeditions". Neotarf (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are numerous possibilities, but it is unclear to me why you oppose the requested one in favour of, apparently, anything else. Srnec (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the links, I have fixed them now.
 * I agree "First Transjordan attack on Amman" is wildly anachronistic, and should be changed. Think "Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor", "German attack on Poland", or "American attack on Iraq".  You cannot have the country of Transjordan attacking itself before it even exists.
 * The claim that "the First Battle of the Jordan" was the name used by the Central Powers 1) does not appear to be sourced. Since none of them spoke English, I highly doubt they called it that. 2) if indeed used by them it would not be neutral per Manual of Style/Military history which also says "If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "battle of X" or "siege of Y", where X and Y are the locations of the operations" 3) The operation was part of a larger campaign in Palestine and Syria, which ended in the capture of Damascus. The name "First Battle of the Jordan", using the definite article, in English can only refer to the Jordan River.  At the very least, sources agree the target of the raid was Amman, even if the expedition was stopped at Salt.  "Amman" should probably be part of the title. Neotarf (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

The use of First 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. The major attack on Amman occurred many miles from the Jordan River/Valley. Please refer to the map included here and others in the three Transjordan articles, which will confirm the locations and distances involved here.

The use of 'Transjordan' is concise and unambiguous because all the fighting during this British Empire attack, 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 mi from the Jordan River (no fighting) and the attack on Amman about 25 mi from the Jordan River, with the second occupation of Es Salt (fighting) and the second attack on Shunet Nimrin about 4 mi 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 Amman is not mentioned it will be very easy for readers to mix these operation up with the subsequent attacks which occurred miles away but only a few weeks later. Further, if Amman is not mentioned in the title of the article, then the main location where fighting took place over a period of days; the precise identification, is not reflected in the article's title, and the fact of Amman's location more than 20 miles east of the Jordan River is also lost sight of. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As "Transjordan" is commonly associated with the 1921-onwards state - use of "Transjordan" could be taken as meaning an attack by the local inhabitants of the region, and therefore perhaps it should be "First trans-Jordan attack..." or "First across the Jordan attack...". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The year was added to the name of this article in an attempt to avoid these kinds of problems. --Rskp (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not give it the British name; they won. I don't think the name "Transjordan" was used much before Emir Abdullah moved his government to Amman, or maybe a little before that when he moved his troops out of Saudi. At any rate, the entire region east of the Jordan River was politically disorganized although technically part of the Ottoman empire. There certainly wasn't any army that could be considered to be "Transjordanian" at that point.
 * Just out of curiosity, why is this not considered to be part of the Arab Revolt? Neotarf (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that Neotarf just committed the error ("there certainly wasn't any army that could be considered to be "Transjordanian" at that point") Graeme spoke of ("use of ‘Transjordan’ could be taken as meaning an attack by the local inhabitants of the region"). The term is useless in this case because any attack on a Transjordanian city like Amman is a Transjordanian attack. It's redundant, but "First attack on Amman (1918)" is bare. The proposed title is used in sources, is in fact an official name used by one of the participants, and is perfectly plain and unambiguous. The only thing it isn't is truly descriptive, but since when are battles named that way? Srnec (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Neotarf, the EEF didn't win this attack. 'Transjordan' in 1918 refers to the EEF attack across the Jordan River into the highlands of Moab. There was an army in the area; the Fourth Army (Ottoman Empire) which consisted of about 12,000 soldiers with headquarters at Amman. I guess its not included in the Arab Revolt because it was a British Empire attack. By the way, thanks for adding my signature. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I see now the Arab force was in Ma’an under Faisel at the time and did coordinate with Allenby's group on the 2nd raid (30 April – 4 May).  Neotarf (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding your suggested names the First and Second Battles of Amman are not the same operations as the First and Second Raids. The First attack on Amman was in March-April, the Second attack on Amman was in September, but the fighting in September was over a much wider area than just the fighting for Amman. The First Raid was on Amman while the Second Raid occurred many miles from Amman about Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt. --Rskp (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Srnec, leaving out 'Transjordan' makes the attack on Amman look like it could have come from Mesopotamia or anywhere; whereas the attack came from across the Jordan River. --Rskp (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The eventual state of Transjordan appears to have been confined to the east side of the Jordan River. Neotarf (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Capture of Jerusalem (08-26/12/1917) First Battle of Amman (27-30/03/1918) Battle of Es Salt (30/04-03/05/1918) Battle of Abu Tellul (14/07/1918) Battle of Megiddo (19-21/09/1918) Battle of Nablus (20/09/1918) Battle of Wadi Fara (21/09/1918) Second Battle of Amman (25/09/1918) Battle of Semakh (25/09/1918) Battle of Kaukab (30/09/1918) Capture of Damascus (01/10/1918) Another refers to the whole March-September action collectively as "Battle of Amman (1918)". Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Roslyn, there doesn't seem to be any agreement about naming conventions about these military operations, but everyone pretty much agrees that there were three British operations targeting Amman. The first raid began March 21, the second raid was April 30 – 4; both got as far as Salt. The third was a major offensive and started on September 19 with faked buildup of troops and horses on the border, then a push north to Meggido. The British calvary outflanked and encircled the Turkish troops to the east, and Amman was taken on September 25. I have fixed the links above, and you can now see how four different scholars treat the same subject. One breaks down the military operations as follows:
 * 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.

moving citation per WP:REF
Moving the citation for the Turkish name for the battle, per WP:REF, WP:INTEGRITY, and WP:CITEFOOT which states "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text-source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." The information for this particular detail I have located on p. 195 of Erickson's Ordered to Die, which states, "After a bloody repulse on 11 April, the Turks halted their counter-attacks and began to dig in. The Turks called this the First Battle of the Jordan." No mention is made of any of the other Central Powers. None of the balance of the information in the paragraph is taken from the Erickson text, so the citation mark properly belongs after this detail, and not at the end of the paragraph. Neotarf (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Premature close
Why has this been closed while there is active discussion going on, and less than two hours after the last comment? And why has it been moved to a title with no year, without any consensus to do so? Neotarf (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PRECISION for the consensus to avoid unnecessary precision. Unanimous opposition to the new name after it made it to the backlog at WP:RM for why it was closed after more than a week of discussion. You're letting your personal disdain for me color your judgment. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Personal disdain"? "Colored judgment"?  Difs, please. When have I ever been less than willing to collaborate with ALL editors, and when have I ever been less than civil with you?  Yes, I have disagreed with you, as is my right.  Let's comment on the content, not on the contributor.
 * My question about why it was moved to a completely different title without consensus, much less discussion, has not been answered. True, there was no consensus to change the title, but you did not simply close the RM; you changed the title. How does removing the date from the title, which is already an unrecognizable description of the topic, and one that is not used at all by reliable sources, make the title more precise instead of less? And why not allow discussion of your proposed title instead of imposing it unilaterally? Neotarf (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Populations living on the battlefields
The following information has been cut by Jim Sweeney from this article - "At the time the peoples of the area varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. To the east of the Jordan Valley in the Es Salt district, Syrian and Greek Orthodox Christians lived, and about Amman were Circassians and Turkmans, while to the east the Bedouin Arab lived. [Handbook 9/4/18 p. 61]" --Rskp (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be more accurate it was cut after a community decision that it was not relevant. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Battle of Sharon for the whole sorry story. --Rskp (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why has this article been cut from B to Start class?
Can the person who cut the Bclass down to Start, please reinstate Bclass? --Rskp (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For B Class it has to be accurate see above discussions.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman victory
Allenby's plan was for the raid not attack to draw Ottoman reserves east of the Jordan, so that when he attacked in the west they were out of place. This is what happened so the claim for an Ottoman victory is not entirely correct. Suggest Ottoman tactical victory British strategic victory. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No this did not happen according to the refs sited. --Rskp (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mixing up fighting which took place in September with this attack in March. If you focus on this article you will see that it describes an EEF force attacking Amman. The First Battle of Amman ended when the EEF force was forced to withdraw because they could not defeat the Ottoman defences. They were forced to withdraw back to the Jordan Valley. How can this be other than an Ottoman victory? --Rskp (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No see Preston page 132


 * General Allenby now judged the time to be ripe for a raid by our troops on the Hedjaz Railway at Amman, which he had long contemplated. The immediate effect of such a raid would be to compel the enemy to withdraw the force which had recently occupied Tafile. It might, in addition, force him to call on the Turkish troops at Maan for aid, thus weakening the garrison there, and giving the Arabs an opportunity to attack the place with some prospects of success. A further result to be expected from the raid would be to induce the enemy to keep a large part of his army east of the Jordan, thus correspondingly weakening his forces in the Judean hills.


 * Second see aftermath section It was considered that any further attempts to capture the Amman Railway Station would incur unacceptable losses and the decision to withdraw was therefore made. Allenby reported to the War Office on 31 March that 5 miles (8.0 km) of railway track and culverts had been destroyed south of Amman Station and a bridge blown up, and that the object of the raid had been achieved by cutting the Hejaz Railway

Remember this was only a raid there was not intention of gaining or holding any territory at Amman. So the raid did what its was intended to. The Ottomans/Turkish reinforced the east and weakened their forces in the west. In that respect it was a strategic British victory. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But there was a lot more to this attack by two divisions on Es Salt and Amman as the article states. You have used a single reference in the Charge at Haritan to completely rewrite the description of the fighting there on the basis of one source and you are trying to do the same thing here. One source gives only one view. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you have chosen to ignore this discussion and just revert my edit. As the accuracy is under question changed to C Class. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The reassessment seemed to me a over-reaction to a point relating only to the infobox. So I've set it back while discussion continues here.
 * The infobox documentation says "result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."


 * I think it would be good to work out:


 * 1) How do the sources describe the overall outcome of the attack with respect to the intended outcome?
 * They describe two divisions attacking Es Salt and Amman where a battle for the town was fought. If it had succeeded then territory might have been won, BUT IT DIDN'T see the First Battle of Amman. When the battle for Amman was lost due to overwhelming Ottoman forces, and without reinforcements from the EEF Shea's force had to break off the fighting and withdraw. Es Salt could not be held as it was also being attacked. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Are the sources in agreement? Is there a consensus across the sources?
 * All the sources are used to describe the fighting. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLES. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Can the (collective) opinion of the sources be adequately expressed in a few words in the infobox, or is it better to link to the appropiate section of the article?
 * What are you talking about? --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Would it be better to omit the "result" from the infobox, as the lede should tell the full story comprehensively yet briefly.
 * GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What, why don't you want it known that this was an Ottoman victory? --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just another instance of a Jim Sweeney time waster. Its so obvious what the outcome of this attack was. Pity really because on other occasions Jim Sweeney does some really good work. --Rskp (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If its so obvious why have you not answered the questions.


 * 1) I didn't answer the questions because I thought the articles spoke for themselves. If you read them you would understand my position. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This was a raid not a stand up head to head battle or attack, all the objectives of the raid except the destruction of the viaduct were completed.
 * 1) YOU ARE WRONG. It was a surprise attack and Es Salt fell quickly but the surprise had worn off by the time Shea's force got to Amman and there was a ding dong dicky die battle fought there over several days. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As they could not destroy the viaduct they destroyed extra lengths of rail track.
 * 1) THE BATTLE WAS FOR THE TOWN OF AMMAN, not the viaduct. This is a complete misrepresentation of the articles. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the post above you have written that the object of the raid had been achieved.
 * 1) I can't believe you can say this when you can't be bothered to read the articles.--Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All sources agree that the raid was a success except the opbvious failure to destroy the viaduct.
 * 1) You are reducing this great invasion of Ottoman territory miles from the EEF front line and the battle of Amman. Why can't you read the articles? --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That the raiders were faced by ever growing numbers of Turkish troops was also part of their objective.
 * 1) This invasion of Ottoman territory resulted in the Ottoman forces counterattacking. Naturally. One infantry division and one mounted division fought in these battles. This was a serious incursion into Ottoman territory, so of course they would retaliate but your slant is just plain weird. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The result is probably best left blank or the more complicated Ottoman tactical victory British strategic victory. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) No it was an Ottoman victory. Why are you so biased against this outcome? --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And there is you answer GraemeLeggett discussion does not work with RoslynSKP. This was a raid with clearly defined objectives, every source says so.


 * Web
 * Australian War Memorial
 * New Zealand History
 * 15th Light Horse Regiment
 * Books
 * Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918
 * Allenby's Military Medicine: Life and Death World War I Palestine
 * The History of the Canterbury Mounted Rifles 1914-1919
 * The Mounted Riflemen in Sinai and Palestine: The Story of New Zealand's Crusaders
 * The Encyclopedia of World War I
 * With the Cameliers in Palestine
 * Preston page 132 above
 * Hughes p.140 from aftermath section
 * Falls - Military operations: Egypt & Palestine, Volume 2, Part 1 Chapter Raid on Amman
 * Woodward - Hell in the Holy Land: World War I in the Middle East page 165
 * G. V. Carey, H. S. Scott - An Outline History of the Great War page 181
 * Wavell - The Palestine campaigns page 185

The situation to the east of the Jordan thus presented a favourable opportunity for a raid on the enemy's communications with the Hedjaz Its immediate effect .would; be to compel the enemy to recall the force which had recently occupied Tafile. It might, in'addition, compel the enemy to call on the garrison of Maan for support. If this should prove to be the case, Sherif Feisal would be afforded, his opportunity to attack Maan with some prospects of success. The extent of this opportunity would depend on the amount of damage done to the" Hedjaz Railway. Near Amman,the railway crosses a viaduct and passes through a 'tunnel. If these could be destroyed it would be some weeks before traffic could be resumed. I determined therefore to carry out a raid on Amman, with the object of destroying the viaduct and tunnel and, if this should be found impossible, to damage the railway as much as possible.
 * Allenby's despetches on the raid

Plus many more Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It would help if a couple of bits were clearer. "Allenby reported to the War Office on 31 March ....that the object of the raid had been achieved by cutting the Hejaz Railway." Is this just Allenby's opinion that he had achieved what he aimed? Do the sources specifically agree with Allenby or just report his opinion?
 * And the sentence that immediately follows; "He took this decision despite the principal objective of destroying the large viaduct at Amman, had not been achieved" Is this the decision to withdraw that precedes "Allenby reported..." or it Allenby's decision to report success despite not having achieved one of the objectives.
 * And was the viaduct the principal of the whole raid or just that portion of the overall force engaged in that area? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

question is not what Allenby's objectives were but whether it was a victory for the Ottoman army or for the EEF. '''Allenby's objectives for Shea's force do not change the outcome. It was an Ottoman Victory during a stand up head to head battle.''' Allenby's despatch describes possible objectives and consequences. It does not describe the attack. The link above goes to a page which does not contain the quote above. Allenby's despatch is dated 8 November 1918 and reads in part, "Near Amman, the the railway crosses a viaduct and passes through a tunnel. If these could be destroyed it would be some weeks before traffic could be resumed. I determined therefore to carry out a raid on Amman, with the object of destroying the viaduct and tunnel and, if this should be found impossible, to damage the railway as much as possible. Even if traffic was only interrupted for a short time, the mere threat of a repetition of this raid would compel the enemy to maintain a considerable force to cover Amman. The troops available to operate against the Arabs would be reduced, and possibly the enemy might transfer a portion of his reserves from the west to the east of the Jordan, thereby weakening his power to make or meet any attack on the main front. Amman is 30 miles east by north of Jericho as the crow flies."
 * The You are trying to moved the goal posts. The question is whether or not it was an Ottoman victory. Not whether it was a raid or not. Allenby ordered the crossing of the Jordan River, the capture of Es Salt and the attack on Amman. Chaytor and Shea fought it. Neither of them were demoted for not following orders. Read the battle of Amman which was an infantry attack by the equivalent of a division of light horse, mounted rifle, camel and infantry brigades/battalions/regiments.--Rskp (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case the movements of troops on which Jim Sweeney bases his spurious claim for an EEF victory were not permanent. The move from west to east of the Seventh Army units across the Jordan during the first and second Transjordan attacks did take place but they were back near Nablus by September. The only move between the first two transjordan attacks was the headquarters of the Fourth Army which moved FORWARD from Amman to Es Salt. That is not the behaviour of the vanquished. After the second transjordan the Fourth Army headquarters was back at Amman. --Rskp (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So it goes back to teh original post - Allenby's plan was for the raid not attack to draw Ottoman reserves east of the Jordan, so that when he attacked in the west they were out of place. This is what happened so the claim for an Ottoman victory is not entirely correct. Suggest Ottoman tactical victory British strategic victory. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Jim Sweeney and GraemeLeggett have based their arguments on Allenby's despatch. It was written on 8 November 1918 after Megiddo had been won, after Damascus had been won, after the Ottoman Empire signed an armistice and after the war had ended. Allenby was looking back seven months and writing in the light of all the battles and pursuits that came after, so its not surprising that he should view the First Transjordan attack from that distance, as a raid and speak of it in the terms quoted above. Allenby's despatch of 8 November is not a report on the First Transjordan attack, that would need to have been dated in April 1918. In any case, the Ottoman Army fought and won a dinky die battle against a mounted division reinforced by two infantry battalions who only withdrew when it became apparent they could not succeed in capturing Amman. This withdrawal had nothing to do with the success or otherwise of the attacks on the Hejaz railway. Read the articles where you will find a balanced view of the operations. In any case this Ottoman victory did not depend on how Allenby defined Shea's attack seven months later. --Rskp (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have at no point offered an opinion as to what the outcome was. I have asked questions to try to lead discussion to resolve the difference of opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Allenby wrote his despatch on 18 September, 1918 not in November that's when it was published. But from above it seems you have failed to grasp the point of this discussion that the result as displayed is too simplistic and does not take in the intended British objectives. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See Powles page 153 175 176

Though the raid on Amman had failed in its primary object of so damaging the railway as to compel the withdrawal of the Turkish forces in the Hedjaz, it had succeeded in drawing northwards and retaining not only the Turkish troops which had been operating against the Arabs, but also a portion of the garrison of Maan and the stations farther south. Indeed the number of enemy troops east of the Jordan, in the Amman-El Salt-Shunet Nimrin area, was doubled as a result of these operations. Taking advantage of this weakening of the Turkish forces opposed to him, the Emir Feisal renewed his attempts on Maan, and, during the first half of April, successfully destroyed a considerable portion of the railway both north and south of it, and even captured an outwork of the town itself, within two miles of the main positions. Apart from the help given to the Arabs, the raid had resulted in a loss to the enemy of nearly 1000 prisoners and of all his ammunition and stores at El Salt. His losses in killed and wounded were estimated to have been not less than 1700. Moreover the bridgehead which had been established across the Jordan at Ghoraniyeh was maintained and improved, and, a little later on, another bridge was thrown over the river some four miles farther north, at the mouth of the river Auja. The really important result of the operations, however, lay in the fact that the raid finally convinced the enemy that, in our next general advance, our cavalry would be directed on Amman and Deraa Junction Under the influence of this idea, he was led to place practically the whole of his IVth Army east of the Jordan, which was thus separated by the river, with its deep and difficult channel, from the remainder of his forces in the Judsean Hills. It was this fact that enabled us, in the following September, to envelop and completely destroy the Vllth and Vlllth Armies, before tlie IVth Army could intervene. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't understand the point I've been trying to make, that in addition to the objective of cutting the Hejaz railway, a battle was fought at Amman, which, according to the sources quoted was lost by Shea's force. Jim Sweeney's link to the Allenby despatch has the date 8 November 1918 on it. It seems to me that Jim Sweeney continues to shift the goal posts. Speculation about the relationship of the First Transjordan attack on the Battle of Megiddo is for the historians to debate. Wikipedia articles describe what the secondary sources say. Only when they are not interested enough to give sufficient information are primary sources brought up. This discussion is going in the opposite direction, is counter-productive and yet another Jim Sweeney time-waster. --Rskp (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep coming up with the time waster tag, can you keep discussion on the article not on editors. The goal posts have never shifted if you do not understand the sources that's fine.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding goal posts. Jim Sweeney began by saying that because the Seventh Army sent units to attack Es Salt that they were "out of place" so it was a British victory. But the Seventh Army units moved back. Then when Jim Sweeney's first argument couldn't hold water, he shifted saying, because it was a raid there was never any intention of "gaining or holding any territory at Amman." He based this on Allenby's 8 November 1918 despatch which I pointed out was written 7 months later. I was wrong it was written 8 months later. Then Jim Sweeney says that the despatch was written in September. But that doesn't change anything. Allenby by September was firmly focused on Damascus and so looking back six months to the attack on Amman he is going to assess it with the benefit of hindsight. The despatch is not a report on the First Transjordan attack. If, Jim Sweeney can bring his focus back to March 1918 instead of trying to link the First Transjordan attack with the Battle of Megiddo, he may be able to understand my point about it being a serious battle for the headquarters of the Fourth Army. Indeed, if it had just been about cutting the railway then Shea and Chaytor would have been disciplined for going against orders to attack Amman. This did not happen. --Rskp (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your starting to rant, suggest you reread the first post and the sources provided. The date of Allenby despatch is immaterial most of the other sources used were written years after the raid. All the sources agree this was a raid but most importantly Allenby says so, as the army commander he had/has the final word, who better to know what he intended. His intention is clearly stated See Powles page 153 175 176 quoted in length above. I would also like to hi light the First Battle of Amman written by User:RoslynSKP which  contradicts your arguments above.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The infobox is supposed to reflect information in the article, not editors original research. --Rskp (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Who made up this silly, endless page name?
The battle has 2 historical names. Transjordan didn't exist back then, except maybe as a biblical term. Intelligence has its limits, but PC has seemingly none. Arminden (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Transjordan attack on Amman. 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/20111216202655/http://www.1914-1918.net:80/britdivs.htm to http://www.1914-1918.net/britdivs.htm

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) 05:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)