Talk:Battle of Mirbat

Talaiasi Labalaba Rank

I watched a documentary on the SAS's actions in Oman and it stated that Talaiasi Labalaba, the Fijian trooper, was a Corporal, not a Sgt.

He's a Corporal on this list: http://www.specwarnet.net/europe/memorial.html Hakluyt bean (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected: Staff Sgt according to the Royal Irish Rangers website Hakluyt bean (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And Staff Sergeant according to his citation for a Mention in Despatches in the London Gazette. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it should be noted that the rank an individual holds within the SAS is not necessarily the same one they hold in their parent regiment. On joining the SAS all rankers are reduced to the rank of trooper, but they continue to officially hold the rank they previously held and are promoted according to their length of service. So Labalaba could quite easily have been a corporal in the SAS but a staff sergeant in the Royal Irish Rangers. All citations would use his official army rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Frederick Forsyth's story The Veteran describes a fictious case of one of the SAS survivors being robbed and killed in London around 1996.89.102.197.114 (talk)

Fatal casualty discrepancy

Evening all. Nice to see a Wikipedia article on this battle. But I think the contradictory description of the Brit/Fijian/Omani Government fatalies needs to be cleared up. The fact box clearly states that TWO members of this allied force were killed in the battle. However, the article then goes onto state that not only Labalaba and Tobin were killed in action, but that the Omani soldier, Walid Khamis, died too, ("...the Omani soldier fell dead after being shot in the stomach with a 7.62mm bullet.") So that makes three killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.21.121 (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet, later on the article states:

An Omani from the fort, Walid Khamis, was injured during the battle and received the Sultan's Gallantry Medal

Contradictory. Seems like disjointed editing. So did Khamis die during the battle after all, did he survive, or was his injury eventually fatal?

Centrepull (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Award for corporal Labalabas courage.

I read in a book about cpl. Labalabas courage and death, i have read that because of Labalabas valor during the battle, many of his colleagues in the SAS agreed that he should receive the Victoria Cross, but he did'nt!

Labalaba was only mentioned in dispatches, the SAS has since Labalabas death asked the quinn to award him the medal, but she has refused.

This is a rediculously outlandish claim. If you wish to dispute the article, please provide more substantial evidence (ie. an ISBN reference), and try to present it with some articulation: the poor quality of English draws into question the credibility. --Sonicandfffan (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That was unnecessary. Not every user of WP has English as a first language. You've misspelt the word 'ridiculously' btw. Hakluyt bean (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For your info Channel 5 in UK is going to be screening a docu drama about Mirbat in November. Worth a watch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.84.162 (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Labalaba could have been awarded the VC, but he couldn't have been awarded any other medal because at the time of the action only the VC (and GC) could be awarded posthumously. Failing the VC, an MiD was therefore the only award available to him. Today he would probably have been awarded a posthumous Conspicuous Gallantry Cross. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kealy's death.

Is there any evidence that Kealy has been murdered? I did not read the Fiennes's book, but without proper citation it sounds hard to believe, and the explanation from (i.e. Kealy died of exposure during an excersise in Brecon Beacons) seems more plausible. 89.102.197.114 (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It does state the word ``alleged``--Rockybiggs (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In one section it says operating the 25 pounder gun is a "three man job". A later section says "4-6". Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.122.223 (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The standard crew is six, per the WP entry on the gun

The gun detachment comprised the following: No 1 - detachment commander (a sergeant), No 2 - operated the breech and rammed the shell, No 3 - layer, No 4 - loader, No 5 - ammunition, No 6 - ammunition, normally the 'coverer' - second in command and responsible for ammunition preparation and operating the fuze indicator.

The official 'reduced detachment' was 4 men. Winterbadger (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Omani participants

I'm adjusting the OB listing, as it seems a bit unfair to simply ignore the Omani troops who participated. Winterbadger (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that all available first-hand testimony attests that the Omani soldiers (with one notable exception) decided to ignore the battle and hole up in the fort, why should they be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.252.125 (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Weren't there a hundred or so firqat 'reservists' involved in this one as well? I remember being told that although the adoo rocked up when the main firqat force was out on a job, there was a substantial group of fighters - mostly old men and boys still in training - who put up some kind of fight in the area between the town fence and the building line. I'll have to chase it up - I think the old boy who told me about it has turned up his toes though.213.121.242.7 (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

well bro i read this "In the service of th Sultan by Ian Gardiner" - as per that omani participants were very limited.there were a dozzen or so Omanis under the SAS at Mirbat, and as far as i recollect as per the author..it was solely SAS vs Adoo --Pranav (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Potentially useful source

This Daily Telegraph obituary for Wing Commander Bill Stoker provides information that might be potentially useful for an expansion of the final stages of this engagement.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I note that Pete "Snapper" Winner does not appear in the list of soldiers who participated; is this an oversight? He discusses the action in his new book Soldier 'I', was also noted by McNab in Seven Troop to have been present [iTunes audiobook and printed versions] and also appears in the Discovery SAS Heroes documentary on Mirbat [repeated 15th Sept 2010; UK]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.55.151 (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for Battle of Mirbat

16°59'32.77"N  54°41'30.59"E

Wes Edwards —Wesedwardsrva (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed — I would have ordinarily declined this one as the existing coords would have been, in usual circumstances, adequately precise, but they pointed at the wrong building, so I made them more precise. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Critical commentary in lede section

The section in the last paragraph is not appropriate content for the lede section. It does not refer directly to the subject but reports an analysis from one source on the way this battle has supposedly been handled. It instead contradicts the other source material in the article and contains commentary in the form of opinion. Although the issues involved are possibly pertinent to the subject, the language used fails Wikipedia policy requiring neutral POV, it fails WP:UNDUE in that it is not correctly placed in the article to suit its level of contribution, making this one approach seem to outweigh the the much greater opposing approach from the eye-witness testimony. Finally the weasel wording - "many British sources" and "some historians" - does not meet quality standards as it is a form of manipulation of the reader - because we don't have evidence for these nameless persons that the editor in question seemingly disapproves of. Several editors in the past few months have attempted to improve this section and have been reverted without any discussion by the original editor. Scootertop (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep, I believe the heading is fine as it is now. However, perhaps we could add a heading further down the article that explains who exactly these British sources are that inflated the deaths of the guerrillas and the importance of the battle? John Newsinger, the historian cited in the lead section, is one of Britain's leading historians of British counterinsurgencies in the later half of the 20th century. I've seen the other editors you mention and none of their changes cite academic literature written by professors and experts in the history of British counterinsurgencies. Wiki's WP:UNDUE does not mean that popular histories should be given the same weight as academic literature written by university professors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The_History_Wizard_of_Cambridge (talk • contribs)

Move, This content is of minimal relevance to the topic of the battle and is provided undue weight by its presence in the lead paragraph, violating NPOV. As it appears to be properly sourced, removing it would perhaps be overreach. I believe subheading of "Controversies" would be the most appropriate location for it. Eyudet (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Move, I don't hear any reasons why it should stay where it is. No one objects to Newsinger's credentials and furthermore whether previous editors are not citing academic literature is no reason why this paragraph should be considered more accurate, or more correct, or more believable than the eye-witness accounts. This analysis seems to be attempting to promote one negative and possibly more biased viewpoint; so it certainly does not deserve special prominence. Most importantly, the content that emphasises exaggeration of some casualties and the praise for the victors is of doubtful reliability (frankly; who cares? none of that is even in the article) and the whole tone of the language is rather dismissive - quite unnecessary given the serious nature of the topic. I am moving the text lower down as suggested.--Scootertop (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You're both mistaken. Eyudet, the effects of the Battle of Mirbat on the war is arguably the most heavily discussed of any subject concerning the Dhofar Rebellion in the English language literature. The effects of Mirbat on the Dhofar war is on the same level as D-Day and Stalingrad are to the WWII wiki. Furthermore, if we look at a featured article for an example, say Battle of the Alamo, myths and legends surrounding a battle's effects and how the battle has been portrayed, do have a place in the lead.

Scootertop, I think it was nonsense when you said "whether previous editors are not citing academic literature is no reason why this paragraph should be considered more accurate". My edits are more valuable because I put in the hard work to find and cite academic literature and works by experts in the field, where as those last editors are unsourced. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that although I put that the academic source was not necessarily "more accurate" - that doesn't mean that it is inaccurate so it still has a place in this article. Anyway, the majority of the other information in this article is sourced correctly. Your other comments reveal a misunderstanding for how content on wikipedia is handled. Please familiarise yourself with applicable editing policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR or WP:VERIFY. Content that does not meet these and other standards can be deleted by other editors.--Scootertop (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't even know what I can say to you if you believe that my edits citing a university history professor's academic material violates WP:NOR. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I looked at some of the sources introduced by The History Wizard of Cambridge and I am concerned that they would not be suitable for Wikipedia, replacing as they did other reliable sources. The source used is far from neutral and takes a stance based on the politicial opinion of the author. I note that since this exchange that editor has been topic banned [1] and I believe that covers this area. As such I would suggest that perhaps the article could do with some clearing up. WCM_email 13:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Balance

This page calls the side fighting against the British "adoo" or عَدُوّ, the arabic word for enemy. I can understand making a reference to the enemy of the British being called "the enemy" by the British, but calling them your enemy all throughout the article suggests a strong bias. JustOneGuyWithALama (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps we can substitute "guerrillas" for "adoo"? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Fiji the best

Uncle tom Morrell the best 120.17.37.254 (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s from Tess reece 120.17.37.254 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)