Talk:Third Transjordan attack

Machine Gun Corps
Was the 86th [or 36th?] Machine Gun Squadron part of the Machine Gun Corps or Chaytor's Force? --Rskp (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

dubious tag: size of Chaytor's Force
Jim Sweeney asserts "A corps is minimum two divisions." without giving a source. Chaytor's Force consisted of one mounted division one brigade of infantry and four battalions of infantry. It was one brigade of infantry short of a corps therefore as Bou says "nearly equivalent to two divisions" and two divisions is a small corps. --Rskp (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney asserts "the 2nd NZ MG Squadron was part of the 5th Light Horse Brigade, formed from the NZ elements of the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade" without giving a source. Kinloch says the squadron was detached. --Rskp (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hard to believe you do not know what makes an Army Corps read the link or any other literature on the subject.  BOU says a "force nearly equivalent to two divisions" which is a long way from saying its the size of a Army Corps.


 * Hard to believe you do not know the XX Corps was made up of two divisions for the attack on Nablus! Chaytor's Force was one brigade short of two divisions. Therefore Chaytor's Force was very close to being the size of a small corps. --Rskp (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No the force was one divisional headquarters, four brigades and four independent battalions. There was no corps troops only a limited amount of artillery no engineers, only a fraction of the transport required 19 lorries compared to 150 in the Desert Mounted Corps and 240 in the infantry corps. But most of all it was part of the Desert Mounted Corps. But anyway 11,0000 men in Chaytor's Force is not a corps, one reason beyond all others is that all of the units in it were part of the Desert Mounted Corps detached for operations. Who says so only the army commander Allenby, refs all in the Chaytor's Force article.

Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Four infantry battalions in the 20th Indian Brigade, plus two Royal Fusiliers infantry battalions and two British West Indies infantry battalions = two thirds of an infantry division, and with the addition of the Anzac Mounted Division including their staff and headquarters = one corps less one third of an infantry division i.e. a small corps. --Rskp (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not two thirds of an infantry division its a brigade and four independent battalions which did not operate as one formation. There was no second brigade or division headquarters. No brigade support troops for the four independent battalions, never mind anything for the supposed second division. No corps support troops. A corps is more than just two divisions, it has its own support troops, artillery, transport, engineers etc. No matter how you try to dress it up, it was not a corps it was a force from the Desert Mounted Corps detached to operate in the Jordan Valley. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The four battalions were not independent; they were part of Chaytor's Force and operated under Chaytor's orders. Read the article.

The artillery was not limited, it included 263 Battery RFA, 10th Indian Mountain Artillery Brigade, 96, 102 and 103 Section, A. A. Guns, 105 Heavy Battery, 2 sections captured 75mm and 1 section captured 5.9 guns.

In addition to the units already listed were the 26sth Machine Gun squadron, and support troops 35 A.T. Coy, Royal Engineers. In addition, transport included 13 tractors, 30 trucks, 20 lorries, 8 trucks and 300 donkeys.

The ration strength on the night of 29/30 September was 11,500 total casualties for September were 1,177 making 12,677 in Chaytor's Force.

"On the 16th September the GOC Anzac Mounted Division took over command of the whole of the Jordan Valley defences as well as Desert Mounted Corps camps at Talaat ed Dumm and Kilo 17 Jericho Jerusalem Road and Desert Mounted Corps Reinforcement Camp, Jerusalem, the force being designated "CHAYTOR'S FORCE." Anzac Mounted Division war diary AWM4-1-61-31. Chaytor's Force was the SIZE of a small corps. --Rskp (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes all those are a small force not a corps, which should have around 40,000 men (two infantry divisions without supporting troops). What you doing in adding A to B and saying it was C. That's WP:SYNTH and you can not do that. If you have a credible reference that says it was a corps then add it. There are now plenty giving historians/authors opinions.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not Synth at all. You are only talking about an infantry corps, but this was a COMBINED FORCE OF INFANTRY AND A MOUNTED DIVISION so 40,000 is misleading - 18,000 would be about a mounted corps of three divisions; there were about 6,000 men in the Australian Mounted Division at the time. So Chaytor's Force of 12,500 - a credible accurate source, not historians' opinion - is approaching corps size. Certainly not "small." --Rskp (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are just guessing at numbers we know from Talk:Battle of Sharon (1918) the size of a mounted division is ~7,000 that's 28,000 for the four divisions in the Desert Mounted Corps. A corps is more than just the minimum of two fighting divisions, it has support and corps troops included. Its not a CREDIBLE ACCURATE SOURCE unless it says Chaytor's Force was a corps, which it does not. There is no source in all the available literature that says it was a corps, so what your doing is WP:SYNTH. Another way to resolve this is take it to WP:MILHIST for a third or more opinions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The ration strength on the night of 29/30 September was 11,500 total casualties for September were 1,177 making 12,677 in Chaytor's Force. [Anzac Mounted Division war diary AWM4-1-61-31] This is not a guess - look up the war diary and check. Similarly on 14 September the effective strength of the Australian Mounted Division was 6,737. [Australian Mounted Division war diary AWM4-1-59-15] Desert Mounted Corps had three divisions in 1917-1918; the Yeomanry Division, the AMD and the AnzacMD. To describe Chaytor's Force as a small mobile force is dubious. --Rskp (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The numbers I was talking about was the guess at how many should be in a mounted corps. It the context of this battle it was the smallest force XX Corps, XXI Corps, and its parent Desert Mounted Corps. So a small mobile force which is referenced is not wrong, there are more references that call it a reinforced mounted division. Either way its a small force not a corps. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Chaytor's Force is definitely not a "small mobile force" which could describe a couple of squadrons. See Talk:Battle of Megiddo (1918) where, recognition of the scope of responsibilities Chaytor's Force quite independently shouldered has been given, and "corps-sized detachment" suggested. --Rskp (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggested is WP:SYNTH there is still no reference for it being a corps or even corps sized.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference to a small mobile force remains dubious. --Rskp (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

2nd NZ MG Sqdn

 * Re the 2nd NZ MG Squadron I do not need to give a ref that's what a dubious tag is for. The 5th Light Horse Brigade has it listed in its ORBAT but that's badly referenced.


 * On 2nd August the New Zealand Section of the Imperial Camel Corps became a new Machine Gun Squadron, called 2nd New Zealand Machine Gun Squadron, under the command of Major Davis.|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/opencalais/organization/2nd-new-zealand-machine-gun-squadron&__utmv=-&__utmk=44584356
 * the 2nd New Zealand Machine Gun Squadron, which was attached to a brigade comprising a French Regiment of Cavalry and the 14th and 15th Light Horse Regiments.
 * the Camel Corps was reduced in strength, and its New Zealand companies became the 2nd NZ Machine-gun Squadron, supporting the 5th Australian Light Horse Brigade
 * In addition to the Brigade and its attached units, two Camel Companies were formed from Mounted Rifles reinforcements. These companies formed a part of the I.C.C. Brigade and fought in the Sinai and Palestine campaigns. On June 10th, 1918, they were disbanded and formed into the 2nd M.G. Squadron, and as such were attached to the 5th Australian L.H.Brigade.
 * Then there is the ORDER OF BATTLE OF EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, SEPTEMBER 1918 by James Hanafin used by User:RoslynSKP to cite several articles
 * 5th Australian Light Horse Brigade
 * 14th Australian Light Horse Regiment (New South Wales)
 * 15th Australian Light Horse Regiment (New South Wales)
 * 1st Regiment Mixte de Cavalrie du Levant (left October 1918)
 * 2nd New Zealand Machine Gun Squadron

Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also the Battle of Tulkarm (1918) The 5th Light Horse Brigade commanded by Brigadier General Macarthur Onslow with the 2nd New Zealand Machine Gun Squadron attached cited to Falls 1930 Vol. 2 p. 487
 * Yes, thanks for clarifying the 2nd NZ Machine Gun Squadron Jim Sweeney. I've also confirmed it from Powles p. 280. --Rskp (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy Edit Complete
I'm through with the copy edit. This will make the GAR go more smoothly for all involved. I tagged a couple of things, and that's not a mark of any kind of disapproval, it's just for communications purposes. I can see what kind of work you've put into the page, and I know that you'll address those issues. A couple of tips you may find helpful in the future:


 * Sentence length: if you feel tempted to use parentheses or semicolons, it's a sign that your sentence is becoming tortured. A sentence is supposed to contain a single, complete idea, so be aware of the tendency to cram more ideas into a sentence than can fit. Where you have grammar errors, they are almost always the result of piling on one subordinate clause after another. By the end, they no longer relate to the original subject, their verbs often disagree in tense, and they may be half-statements that don't relate to a clear subject at all. Readers lose attention when this happens, and as much work has gone into this, I'm sure that you want people to read it.
 * Use direct statements: This is a prose article, not a timeline. Make your subject clear by leading the sentence with it, instead of leading with subordinate clauses such as "On 21 September," "Meanwhile," and so on. You're not writing about a date, you're writing about an event that occurred on that date, so write about the event and work the date into the sentence. It's alright to use these sparingly for variety, and is the most appropriate option for certain situations, but when sentences are continually led with indirect statements, it gives an effect of hesitancy and weakness.
 * Quotations: the lengthly quotations encased in blockquotes are fine, but there are a lot of shorter quotes throughout the article, and I'm not sure that a single one of them is better as a quote than it would be as a paraphrase. These quotes disrupt the flow of sentences because of the distraction of the quotation marks, and their introduction of archaic language. They also paint you into a grammatical corner, because the rest of the sentence has to be fit around them. You may feel that it adds something to use the principals' own words, but this is an article, and few of those military men were wordsmiths, least of all in the heat of battle.


 * An example from the second-to-last paragraph: At Ain es Sir, the Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment captured a number of Circassians "suspected of involvement in the May attack and escorted them to Jerusalem for trial."[1][2][Note 1]. There's nothing here that a paraphrase couldn't say as well or better. A paraphrase could work in an explanation of what the "May attack" was, but the use of a quote requires the addition of an explanatory footnote. This is suboptimal, and there are several such awkward workarounds throughout the article.

Good work on the article, and good luck with the GAR. Dementia13 (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your interest and time in editing this article and I really appreciate your very valuable comments. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting edits
Its not a valid reason to revert someone's edit just because you do not agree with them. If needed changes can be discussed on talk. Remember WP:OWN. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jim Sweeney has made drastic cuts to this article without consultation. He had cut corrections to grammar, the former name of a brigade, the correct name of a commander, and the make up of Chaytor's Force which fought the Third Transjordan attack. When Jim Sweeney makes cuts the grammar mess is not fixed afterwards. Jim Sweeney has also added a too long tag. All this sudden cutting by Jim Sweeney on 17 January during a GAR appears to be deliberately timed as he visited the article in October and December 2012 without finding the necessity to add the too big tag or cut the make up of Chaytor's Force. Why weren't these cuts made then? Jim Sweeney used the description of Chaytor's Force which he now cuts, to create the article Chaytor's Force in August 2012. --Rskp (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But Jim Sweeney copied this OOB and used it without acknowledgement to create Chaytor's Force. Now Jim Sweeney wants to cut it from the article Jim Sweeney copied it from, again without acknowledging what is really happening here - the covering of tracks.--Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * SEE ANSWER BELOW Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jim Sweeney has split an article without discussing the possibility of taking this action on the talk page. --Rskp (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Jim Sweeney has collapsed the following comment: "Jim Sweeney has split an article without discussing the possibility of taking this action on the talk page. [9] --Rskp (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)" It is relevant to this discussion as its an example of Jim Sweeney failing to discuss taking a radical action before splitting an article which is a far more drastic edit than the one complained about here. --Rskp (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally even though it has nothing to do with this article, a check on the talk page of the other article shows discussion started 11 months ago. Thank you. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Eleven months ago Jim Sweeney copied the OOB to create the article Chaytor's Force. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that Chaytor's Force was created here 28 August 2012. With references, Jukes, Perret and Hanafin that are not used in this article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"Eleven months ago Jim Sweeney copied the OOB to create the article Chaytor's Force. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC) "I think you will find that Chaytor's Force was created here [2] 28 August 2012. With references, Jukes, Perret and Hanafin that are not used in this article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC) But Jim Sweeney you do not deny that you copied Chaytor's Force OOB from the Third Transjordan attack article to create the Chaytor's Force article without acknowledging where you got the information. --Rskp (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again Jim Sweeney has collapsed this discussion: "Finally even though it has nothing to do with this article, a check on the talk page of the other article shows discussion started 11 months ago. Thank you. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll continue with the rest of the review over the weekend, but a key GA requirement is stability. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no drastic cuts, they are called edits by the way.


 * There is no need for a detailed OOB for Chaytor's Force as the article is linked. Also see 3b Good article criteria]]
 * The correct name is Harry Chauvel see WP:COMMONNAME
 * No. Harry was a nick name. His name was Henry Chauvel. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you acknowledge he used Harry not Henry WP:COMMONNAME Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There never has been a 10th Mhow Cavalry Brigade, it was the 5th (Mhow) Cavalry Brigade. So you had the wrong name written.
 * I am not making any of this up. Its not me, but the source quoted which describes the unit. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So its an inaccurate source used. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Size it is too big at 90,394 bytes see Article size and article size is not part of the Good article criteria.
 * Size is relative. There is no firm cut off and Jim Sweeney's current actions of adding a too big tag to so many articles only in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign area of Wikipedia is strange. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As above WP:Article Size Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of Rollback
Jim Sweeney has used his Rollback power to edit this article to cover his unacknowledged copying of information to create an article. The edits Jim Sweeney has rolled back were not made by a banned user, nor have been either problematic or vandalism. Jim Sweeney has used rollback to reverse good-faith edits which are helpful to the encyclopedia. Jim Sweeney's action is against the guidelines for the use of rollback. --Rskp (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rskp, how do you identify a rollback edit on the log? (NB: I don't know, so can't quite work out which edit you're referring to). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When a number of separate edits are undone together. The edit I'm referring to undid my edits of 06:39, 06:49, 06:50, 06:51, 06:54, 07:04 and 07:30 on 18 January 2013 here in one go just over an hour later at 08:58 on 18 January 2013. --Rskp (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And you do not believe reverting another persons edits just because you did not like them were not problematic? That why the discussion in the section above was started. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea what you are talking about Jim Sweeney. This is about abuse of rollback. --Rskp (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maps, Referencing, overuse of quotes and grammer
Obviously a lot of work has gone it this so congratulations to the editors. That said there are a few issues which I'm surprised made it through the review. In particular:


 * Quite a few of the maps look like very low quality scans from a book (they even have the indent of the spine)! The detail is impossible to make out so rather than adding to a readers understanding of the events, they detract from it and make the article seem amaturish.
 * The reference section is poorly presented. There are numerous issues with MOS compliance, including using lower case, inaccurate presentation of titles, series and volumes, not using the correct fields in the cite template, and incorrect presentation of publishers to mention just a few of the issues.
 * This article suffers from an overuse of quotes. There are a number of large block quotes from letters, and many inline quotes as part of sentences. This may be acceptable for pulp history for consumption by the wider market, but surely on wikipedia it is a bit excessive. Would it not be better to rewrite and summerise the useful information they contain?
 * Despite copy editing and a thorough review there are still issues with the grammer used. I have made some edits to highlight the problems. 175.35.63.121 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One further point - the infobox is incomplete. Where are strengths and casualties? 175.35.63.121 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. I've had a look at your work and reinstated meaning where it has been lost during your corrections of grammar. Thanks again. --Rskp (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with these points 175. Thanks for having a go at correcting some of these issues too. I have reformatted the references but if I have missed any pls feel free to go over it again. Hopefully this point is resolved though. The other issues will probably need to be addressed by the main author of the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest and positive contributions. I've moved back sources from further reading and external links to references as readers may not find them in these other subsections. By the way the Beni Sakhr are a group or tribe of Bedouin not a person, which you would know from your close reading of the article. --Rskp (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why thank the bloke but undo most of his edits? Not sure why I'm surprised though... (although you are of course right about the Beni Sakhr) Given that the IP doesn't look like they are coming back (they haven't made any other edits at least) I'm wondering if you are going to respond their other (quite valid) points? I don't see any action on these. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You should check out the IP which did indeed make other edits. But lets hope who ever it was comes back with a username. As some of the edits were not beneficial they were changed but they led to improvements as I didn't just simply reinstate the information as it stood but took the opportunity to reevaluate and improve it. When I get a chance I'll look at those criticisms, but right now I'm a bit too busy. --Rskp (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by: "you should check out the IP" but whatever. Ultimately you seem to be of the opinion that you're the only one qualified to assess if an edit is "beneficial". I reviewed the edits made by 175 and the vast majority seemed quite helpful. Why should such editors return if they aren't allowed to contribute? It seems that nearly every time someone makes an edit to an article you are working on you take "the opportunity to reevaluate" it (or in less veiled terms own it). BTW - take that last comment to mean whatever you want but don't remove it as "a personal attack" (like you usually do with any criticism). If you are offended pls feel free to take me to ANI and to quote me verbatim. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Retreat/Withdrawal
All references to 'retreat' have been changed to 'withdrawal' amid claims of POV. As the two terms are interchangeable, according to the dictionary, I can't see what the problem is myself. But if an editor wants to keep his standing as the 264th most active editor, well I suppose something has to be done. --Rskp (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Retreat is very much a military POV term. They retreat while we withdraw. Its correcting your faults that must be keeping me there. Thanks for that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)