This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Beersheba (1917) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of Beersheba (1917) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 31, 2015, October 31, 2017, October 31, 2018, and October 31, 2023. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote " The Australian artillery opened fire with shrapnel from long range but it was ineffective against the widely spaced horsemen" shouldn't that be some other force's artillery??? 62.219.213.74 11:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) It has been changed at some time to Austrian artillery. Is this correct? I wasn't aware of the Austrian's being involved there?
how was that any different that japanese pilots on suicide missions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 ( talk) 06:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing this article as it stands, it doesn't seem to me to be encyclopaedic any longer. There is too much space devoted to rubbishing previous versions, too much detail irrelevant to the main narrative and too many references to maps not available under wikipedia WP:EGG HLGallon ( talk) 08:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
After a quick read I think only the third paragraph of the prelude is really awry. The rest is mostly ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.16.143 ( talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
It's been awhile but I remember reading something about the tactics involved in this battle, I think maybe they should be included (if someone can find a reference) because they had an influence on the result.
Light Horse Infantry Tactics - Troopers would use their mounts to rapidly close the gap between them and their enemy, at a certain distance they would dismount, leaving their horses behind they would then fight the battle as traditional infantry.
Defensive Tactics v Light Horse - The tactics of the Light Horse were well known, as such the defenders would preset their sights to the approximate distance they would dismount, holding fire until they did. Dismounting took time, during this the troopers were vulnerable, easy targets (If memory serves this tactic led to heavy casualties in previous engagements in other conflicts)
Light Horse Tactics in this battle - Instead of dismounting as per normal, the troopers committed to a full charge, riding past where their opposition had sighted their weapons, this meant when they finally opened fire it was inaccurate allowing large numbers of the Australian to get to & past the Turkish lines - Significantly altering the outcome of the battle 125.237.102.11 ( talk) 23:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it is worth pointing out a number of relevant points.
First, at the indecisive battle of Katia, two, and possibly three, mounted brigades took part in a mounted charge, which bogged down in soft ground and marsh. This occurred some time prior to the battle of Beersheba.
Secondly, the contention that the Imperial mounted units were trained for mounted charges, and the Dominion troops were not shows a complete and utter disregard of the realities of the Empire structure and commitment. For the large part, the Dominion senior officers were largely drawn from long standing pre-war militia units, and in fact Chauvel himself was a career cavalryman, who anticipated a posting to Britain as part of his career progression. It is also worth noting that the charge itself was conducted in 'artillery formation', with an interval of 5 yards between troopers, and up to 400 yards between lines. This gives an approximate depth and frontage, for the full charge formation, including mounted machine gun, support and medical units, of around 3+ kilometres frontage and a depth of over a kilometre. Tactical cavalry doctrine for a mounted charge detailed that charges should be conducted boot to boot, to crush receiving enemy underfoot, or to batter into a receiving cavalry formation. The difference in result (loosely) of using the artillery formation is obvious - the Light Brigade at Balaclava was mauled, whereas 4th Light Horse casualties were almost statistically irrelevant. The simple fact was that up until Beersheba, practicality and opportunity restricted all mounted units, regardless of nationality, to a mounted infantry function. In the months following Beersheba, all Dominion mounted units were issued the 1908 model cavalry sword, and this information was promoted when and where ever possible, which contributed to the psychological advantage generated by the Beersheba charge.
After the withdrawal of the Imperial cavalry to the Western Front, a cavalry division from India replaced them. This formation also included lancers, which were used to great effects in the 1918 campaigns, complementing the actual cavalry role of the remaining Dominion units.
Finally, I consider that the entire article is somewhat slanted away from Sir Harry Chauvel. Firstly, Allenby's decision to attempt the Beersheba operation was largely based on support from Chauvel, who essentially planned the actual operation, established the logistic and administrative support, and planned the actual movements and battle. Although Allenby was a vast improvement over Murray and Chetwoode's (and others) command by remote control, he was still so far out of touch that he had little to no control over the operation once it started. Chauvel, on the other hand, was far enough forward to observe the entire battle, and to receive both aerial recconnaisance reports, and landline updates from observer points. Although it may seem somewhat shallow, Chauvel's "Put Grant straight at it" command was not unusual, nor lacking in depth. The simple fact was that as a mounted body, the DMC had been operating together for 18 months plus, and the objective and intent was self-explanatory...take the town. Certainly, time was running short, and success had to be achieved before full darkness, which only gave half to a full hour from the commencement of the charge, but once the breakthrough was achieved the large advantage of the mounted units was the quality of troops and cohesion in chaotic circumstances, which had been proven time and again in the previous months. It is also worth pointing out that it was standard Desert Mounted doctrine to encircle in all offensive operations, for a number of reasons, primarily twofold, though...first, it denied the ability of the enemy to withdraw, retreat or reinforce, and second, as a psychological advantage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiddenGunman ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Beersheba (1917)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "AnzacMDwd10.17":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There are several instances where the word London is used 2/13th London for example.
London is a place, see also
London (disambiguation).
2/13th London does not make any sense its an abbreviation and not a very accurate one for the 2/13th Battalion,
London Regiment, the largest ever British regiment.
It military terms especially in the First World War London was used for the
1st London Division,
2/1st London Division,
2nd London Division,
2/2nd London Division.
Then there were also the divisions brigades
1st London Brigade,
2nd London
3rd London,
2/1st London Brigade,
2/2nd London,
2/3rd London,
3/1st London,
4th London,
5th London,
6th London,
2/4th London,
2/5th London,
2/6th London.
Then there were the 89 battalions of the London Regiment so to call something the 2/13th London need clarifying as to what you mean.
On a separate note there still seems to be severe ownership problems with any article you work on. The correct name for all those battalions has now been added twice, I would remind you of B Class criteria 2 "Coverage and accuracy" using incorrect names for these battalions drops this article down to C Class. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 08:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
His credentials stand up to any scrutiny. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney has inserted citation needed tags which would require the duplication of the citations already in the text =
And
This would mean the same citation quoted twice in the first instance and three times in the second, straight after one another. -- Rskp ( talk) 05:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney has changed the names of some battles during his [13] edit. He changed from capital B Battle of Passchendaele to small b battle of Passchendaele, capital F First capital B Battle of Gaza to small letter f first small letter b battle of Gaza, capital S Second capital B Battle of Gaza to small s second small b battle of Gaza and capital R Raid on the Suez Canal to small r raid on the Suez Canal. The edit is only accompanied by the generic (Copyedit (minor)). What would be the purpose of such edits? -- Rskp ( talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with an editor keep changing the name of this unit, with the edit summery It was never a corps [14] If they mean it was never an army corps then that is correct but no one is saying it was. Its name was the Imperial Camel Corps, who says so?
I suggest if you insist this unit did not have the word corps in its title you gain a consensus for the change. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 16:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
According to the current lead: "The Battle of Beersheba (Turkish: Birüssebi Savaşı, German: Kriegerdenkmal Be'er Scheva; also known as the Third Battle of Gaza)..." Is it correct to say Beersheba was also known as the Third Battle of Gaza? This doesn't seem right. If it is why do we have a separate article for that event? Indeed according to that article "The Third Battle of Gaza was fought during the night of 1/2 November 1917 after the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) victory at the Battle of Beersheba ended the Stalemate in Southern Palestine..." So which is it? Anotherclown ( talk) 19:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Typical lazy Wikipedia hack job. |
Article only tells British side (and even calls the Turks the "enemy"). Mostly a collection of copy and pasted text and quotes rather than a serious attempt to recount battle. Same with most of the articles in the SNP campaign. Is this what passes for a good article these days? No wonder your site has no credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.227.39.120 ( talk) 12:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
To set the record straight another user breeched 3 RR, not I, and I raised that issue with her on her talk page IAW policy. I wasn't in breech of 3 RR because I did not revert again - not because I was "saved" by another editor. Suggest if that editor respected the rules of conduct we wouldn't have got to that point in the first place. Anotherclown ( talk) 04:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
During the Battle of Beersheba, there were Yeomanry infantry and Yeomanry cavalry units involved in the fighting. The yeomanry cavalry brigades were in the Yeomanry Mounted Division along with two yeomanry cavalry brigades; the 5th Mounted Brigade in the Australian Mounted Division and the 7th Mounted Brigade which was attached to Desert Mounted Corps. Meanwhile, the 75th Division of yeomanry infantry, served in the XX Corps. Therefore it is necessary in this article to clearly identify which type of yeomanry unit is being referred to. -- Rskp ( talk) 05:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
At the moment the article doesn't seem to provide a figure for Ottoman casualties during the battle, just wondering if anyone is aware of a source which contains this information? I recall seeing a figure in my readings over the last few years, but can't remember where (so obviously not helpful). As part of a Google search I did find one estimate of 500 dead here [28], although not sure if this is a reliable source. Fairly sure some sort of estimate would be / is available and believe they need to be included for the sake of completeness. I'm going to keep looking and see what I come up with but don't have access to my books or a library at the moment. Anotherclown ( talk) 05:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there was such a legal entity as the British Empire. It was legally declared in the Statute in Restraint of Appeals of 1533. No one in 1917 would have doubted that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was part of the British Empire. While the UK and Australia were not quite and not quite yet on the same level in the Empire in 1917, it is wrong to portray the Dominions as under the United Kingdom, which had no control over them. So the agreed layout of the infobox works best. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Beersheba (1917). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The battle of Beersheba occurred after the Germans offered the best peace terms in history at the end of 1916. They stated that all belligerents should take their armies and weapons and return to their pre-war borders. The Germans, who were the last to enter the war did not claim reparations. British Zionists (Balfour agreement) restarted the war in return for Britain seizing Palestine and giving it to them.
Is this subject taboo? The 1916 peace offer was not mentioned in the competent, honest and impartial mainstream media anywhere.
I'm a bit surprised this is rated as a "good article" - it has virtually nothing on the enduring significance of the battle. I think at least two aspects should be mentioned: (a) the perceived theological significance, that there is a line of thought in some Christian circles that it was part of the fulfilment of biblical prophecy [33] (b) the significance in Australian history - it has been called " Australia's first big achievement on the world stage". St Anselm ( talk) 10:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
1.129.107.139 ( talk)The significance of the battle is that its purpose was to seize Palestine from the Turks so that Palestine could be presented to the Zionists who were promised it in return for helping Britain win the war (by involving America in the war). Within America Zionists blackmailed President Wilson regarding his affair with the wife of another Princeton professor. The blackmail resulted in Pres. Wilson declaring war against Germany, breaking his promise to keep America out of the European war. Research 'Sussex', 'Untermeyer'.
The war that started with the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian emperor ended in 1916 when the Germans offered peace. From 1917 onwards, the war was fought to give the Zionists Palestine. After almost five million fresh US troops defeated the Germans for the Zionists the Germans were betrayed by Wilson's 14 point peace program and, in contrast to the generous German 1916 peace offer, the tricked Germans were rewarded with the Versailles treaties, the worst impositions in history. r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.107.139 ( talk) 20:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Beersheba (1917). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
It is evident from the introductory paragraphs that this article is unbalanced. It favors the British side and gives little place for the Ottoman narrative.
Do we not have enough resources from the Ottoman side? Of course we do. The problem is bias, which is natural for an English medium I guess. I am not sure if it's fixable. Just don't claim to be neutral then. 46.31.112.213 ( talk) 12:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Beersheba (1917) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Battle of Beersheba (1917) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 31, 2015, October 31, 2017, October 31, 2018, and October 31, 2023. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote " The Australian artillery opened fire with shrapnel from long range but it was ineffective against the widely spaced horsemen" shouldn't that be some other force's artillery??? 62.219.213.74 11:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) It has been changed at some time to Austrian artillery. Is this correct? I wasn't aware of the Austrian's being involved there?
how was that any different that japanese pilots on suicide missions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 ( talk) 06:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing this article as it stands, it doesn't seem to me to be encyclopaedic any longer. There is too much space devoted to rubbishing previous versions, too much detail irrelevant to the main narrative and too many references to maps not available under wikipedia WP:EGG HLGallon ( talk) 08:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
After a quick read I think only the third paragraph of the prelude is really awry. The rest is mostly ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.16.143 ( talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
It's been awhile but I remember reading something about the tactics involved in this battle, I think maybe they should be included (if someone can find a reference) because they had an influence on the result.
Light Horse Infantry Tactics - Troopers would use their mounts to rapidly close the gap between them and their enemy, at a certain distance they would dismount, leaving their horses behind they would then fight the battle as traditional infantry.
Defensive Tactics v Light Horse - The tactics of the Light Horse were well known, as such the defenders would preset their sights to the approximate distance they would dismount, holding fire until they did. Dismounting took time, during this the troopers were vulnerable, easy targets (If memory serves this tactic led to heavy casualties in previous engagements in other conflicts)
Light Horse Tactics in this battle - Instead of dismounting as per normal, the troopers committed to a full charge, riding past where their opposition had sighted their weapons, this meant when they finally opened fire it was inaccurate allowing large numbers of the Australian to get to & past the Turkish lines - Significantly altering the outcome of the battle 125.237.102.11 ( talk) 23:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it is worth pointing out a number of relevant points.
First, at the indecisive battle of Katia, two, and possibly three, mounted brigades took part in a mounted charge, which bogged down in soft ground and marsh. This occurred some time prior to the battle of Beersheba.
Secondly, the contention that the Imperial mounted units were trained for mounted charges, and the Dominion troops were not shows a complete and utter disregard of the realities of the Empire structure and commitment. For the large part, the Dominion senior officers were largely drawn from long standing pre-war militia units, and in fact Chauvel himself was a career cavalryman, who anticipated a posting to Britain as part of his career progression. It is also worth noting that the charge itself was conducted in 'artillery formation', with an interval of 5 yards between troopers, and up to 400 yards between lines. This gives an approximate depth and frontage, for the full charge formation, including mounted machine gun, support and medical units, of around 3+ kilometres frontage and a depth of over a kilometre. Tactical cavalry doctrine for a mounted charge detailed that charges should be conducted boot to boot, to crush receiving enemy underfoot, or to batter into a receiving cavalry formation. The difference in result (loosely) of using the artillery formation is obvious - the Light Brigade at Balaclava was mauled, whereas 4th Light Horse casualties were almost statistically irrelevant. The simple fact was that up until Beersheba, practicality and opportunity restricted all mounted units, regardless of nationality, to a mounted infantry function. In the months following Beersheba, all Dominion mounted units were issued the 1908 model cavalry sword, and this information was promoted when and where ever possible, which contributed to the psychological advantage generated by the Beersheba charge.
After the withdrawal of the Imperial cavalry to the Western Front, a cavalry division from India replaced them. This formation also included lancers, which were used to great effects in the 1918 campaigns, complementing the actual cavalry role of the remaining Dominion units.
Finally, I consider that the entire article is somewhat slanted away from Sir Harry Chauvel. Firstly, Allenby's decision to attempt the Beersheba operation was largely based on support from Chauvel, who essentially planned the actual operation, established the logistic and administrative support, and planned the actual movements and battle. Although Allenby was a vast improvement over Murray and Chetwoode's (and others) command by remote control, he was still so far out of touch that he had little to no control over the operation once it started. Chauvel, on the other hand, was far enough forward to observe the entire battle, and to receive both aerial recconnaisance reports, and landline updates from observer points. Although it may seem somewhat shallow, Chauvel's "Put Grant straight at it" command was not unusual, nor lacking in depth. The simple fact was that as a mounted body, the DMC had been operating together for 18 months plus, and the objective and intent was self-explanatory...take the town. Certainly, time was running short, and success had to be achieved before full darkness, which only gave half to a full hour from the commencement of the charge, but once the breakthrough was achieved the large advantage of the mounted units was the quality of troops and cohesion in chaotic circumstances, which had been proven time and again in the previous months. It is also worth pointing out that it was standard Desert Mounted doctrine to encircle in all offensive operations, for a number of reasons, primarily twofold, though...first, it denied the ability of the enemy to withdraw, retreat or reinforce, and second, as a psychological advantage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiddenGunman ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Beersheba (1917)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "AnzacMDwd10.17":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There are several instances where the word London is used 2/13th London for example.
London is a place, see also
London (disambiguation).
2/13th London does not make any sense its an abbreviation and not a very accurate one for the 2/13th Battalion,
London Regiment, the largest ever British regiment.
It military terms especially in the First World War London was used for the
1st London Division,
2/1st London Division,
2nd London Division,
2/2nd London Division.
Then there were also the divisions brigades
1st London Brigade,
2nd London
3rd London,
2/1st London Brigade,
2/2nd London,
2/3rd London,
3/1st London,
4th London,
5th London,
6th London,
2/4th London,
2/5th London,
2/6th London.
Then there were the 89 battalions of the London Regiment so to call something the 2/13th London need clarifying as to what you mean.
On a separate note there still seems to be severe ownership problems with any article you work on. The correct name for all those battalions has now been added twice, I would remind you of B Class criteria 2 "Coverage and accuracy" using incorrect names for these battalions drops this article down to C Class. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 08:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
His credentials stand up to any scrutiny. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney has inserted citation needed tags which would require the duplication of the citations already in the text =
And
This would mean the same citation quoted twice in the first instance and three times in the second, straight after one another. -- Rskp ( talk) 05:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney has changed the names of some battles during his [13] edit. He changed from capital B Battle of Passchendaele to small b battle of Passchendaele, capital F First capital B Battle of Gaza to small letter f first small letter b battle of Gaza, capital S Second capital B Battle of Gaza to small s second small b battle of Gaza and capital R Raid on the Suez Canal to small r raid on the Suez Canal. The edit is only accompanied by the generic (Copyedit (minor)). What would be the purpose of such edits? -- Rskp ( talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with an editor keep changing the name of this unit, with the edit summery It was never a corps [14] If they mean it was never an army corps then that is correct but no one is saying it was. Its name was the Imperial Camel Corps, who says so?
I suggest if you insist this unit did not have the word corps in its title you gain a consensus for the change. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 16:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
According to the current lead: "The Battle of Beersheba (Turkish: Birüssebi Savaşı, German: Kriegerdenkmal Be'er Scheva; also known as the Third Battle of Gaza)..." Is it correct to say Beersheba was also known as the Third Battle of Gaza? This doesn't seem right. If it is why do we have a separate article for that event? Indeed according to that article "The Third Battle of Gaza was fought during the night of 1/2 November 1917 after the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) victory at the Battle of Beersheba ended the Stalemate in Southern Palestine..." So which is it? Anotherclown ( talk) 19:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Typical lazy Wikipedia hack job. |
Article only tells British side (and even calls the Turks the "enemy"). Mostly a collection of copy and pasted text and quotes rather than a serious attempt to recount battle. Same with most of the articles in the SNP campaign. Is this what passes for a good article these days? No wonder your site has no credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.227.39.120 ( talk) 12:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
To set the record straight another user breeched 3 RR, not I, and I raised that issue with her on her talk page IAW policy. I wasn't in breech of 3 RR because I did not revert again - not because I was "saved" by another editor. Suggest if that editor respected the rules of conduct we wouldn't have got to that point in the first place. Anotherclown ( talk) 04:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
During the Battle of Beersheba, there were Yeomanry infantry and Yeomanry cavalry units involved in the fighting. The yeomanry cavalry brigades were in the Yeomanry Mounted Division along with two yeomanry cavalry brigades; the 5th Mounted Brigade in the Australian Mounted Division and the 7th Mounted Brigade which was attached to Desert Mounted Corps. Meanwhile, the 75th Division of yeomanry infantry, served in the XX Corps. Therefore it is necessary in this article to clearly identify which type of yeomanry unit is being referred to. -- Rskp ( talk) 05:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
At the moment the article doesn't seem to provide a figure for Ottoman casualties during the battle, just wondering if anyone is aware of a source which contains this information? I recall seeing a figure in my readings over the last few years, but can't remember where (so obviously not helpful). As part of a Google search I did find one estimate of 500 dead here [28], although not sure if this is a reliable source. Fairly sure some sort of estimate would be / is available and believe they need to be included for the sake of completeness. I'm going to keep looking and see what I come up with but don't have access to my books or a library at the moment. Anotherclown ( talk) 05:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there was such a legal entity as the British Empire. It was legally declared in the Statute in Restraint of Appeals of 1533. No one in 1917 would have doubted that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was part of the British Empire. While the UK and Australia were not quite and not quite yet on the same level in the Empire in 1917, it is wrong to portray the Dominions as under the United Kingdom, which had no control over them. So the agreed layout of the infobox works best. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Beersheba (1917). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The battle of Beersheba occurred after the Germans offered the best peace terms in history at the end of 1916. They stated that all belligerents should take their armies and weapons and return to their pre-war borders. The Germans, who were the last to enter the war did not claim reparations. British Zionists (Balfour agreement) restarted the war in return for Britain seizing Palestine and giving it to them.
Is this subject taboo? The 1916 peace offer was not mentioned in the competent, honest and impartial mainstream media anywhere.
I'm a bit surprised this is rated as a "good article" - it has virtually nothing on the enduring significance of the battle. I think at least two aspects should be mentioned: (a) the perceived theological significance, that there is a line of thought in some Christian circles that it was part of the fulfilment of biblical prophecy [33] (b) the significance in Australian history - it has been called " Australia's first big achievement on the world stage". St Anselm ( talk) 10:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
1.129.107.139 ( talk)The significance of the battle is that its purpose was to seize Palestine from the Turks so that Palestine could be presented to the Zionists who were promised it in return for helping Britain win the war (by involving America in the war). Within America Zionists blackmailed President Wilson regarding his affair with the wife of another Princeton professor. The blackmail resulted in Pres. Wilson declaring war against Germany, breaking his promise to keep America out of the European war. Research 'Sussex', 'Untermeyer'.
The war that started with the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian emperor ended in 1916 when the Germans offered peace. From 1917 onwards, the war was fought to give the Zionists Palestine. After almost five million fresh US troops defeated the Germans for the Zionists the Germans were betrayed by Wilson's 14 point peace program and, in contrast to the generous German 1916 peace offer, the tricked Germans were rewarded with the Versailles treaties, the worst impositions in history. r — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.107.139 ( talk) 20:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Beersheba (1917). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
It is evident from the introductory paragraphs that this article is unbalanced. It favors the British side and gives little place for the Ottoman narrative.
Do we not have enough resources from the Ottoman side? Of course we do. The problem is bias, which is natural for an English medium I guess. I am not sure if it's fixable. Just don't claim to be neutral then. 46.31.112.213 ( talk) 12:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)