Talk:Charge at Haritan

Errors

This article claims the charge was successful, however both the brigade history and Allenby despatches say it was not. The brigade captured a small portion of the position then had to dig in and hold out. There was no counter-attack the Ottomans approached to within 800 yards then dug in, they did not attack. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

NOT ERRORS

Jim Sweeney put a dubious tag on this para from the Official History as quoted in the article:

The Mysore Lancers advanced at the charge; three squadrons in line of squadron columns, the fourth squadron in support to capture a section of the rearguard position held by 150 Ottoman soldiers armed with rifles and artillery. About 50 survived and 20 were taken prisoner before a far stronger Ottoman force began to attack the Mysore Lancers, forcing them to withdraw, while the two Jodhpur squadrons halted in the rear.[Falls 1930 Vol. 2 p. 615]

The original source reads: "In this, the last engagement of the campaign the Mysore Lancers advanced with great dash in the face of artillery and subsequenty rifle fire, three squadrons in line of squadron columns, the fourth in support. The position held by a party of 150 Turks was carried about fifty of the enmy being speared and twenty prisoners taken. The Turks now disclosed far greater strength than had been anticipated and the regiment, coming under heavy fire fell back from the ridge. Lieutenant Colonel Holden who had ahlted the two Jodhpur squadrons in a fold of the ground in rear sent Major Lambert for news." [Falls 1930 Vol. 2 p. 615]

There is no error here Jim Sweeney. --Rskp (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So you agree from above that the charge was not successful as they did not capture the position just a small section of it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The above is what is/was in the article. --Rskp (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

From Allenbys despetches Early on the morning of October 26th the armoured cars and the 15th Cavalry Brigade, moving round the west side of the town, followed the enemy along the Aleppo—Katma road and gained touch with him south-east of Haritan. The Turkish rearguard consisted of some 2,500 infantry, 150 cavalry, and eight guns. The Mysore Lancers and two squadrons of the Jodhpur Lancers attacked the enemy's left; covered by the fire of the armoured cars, the Machine Gun Squadron and two dismounted squadrons of the Jodhpur Lancers. The Mysore and Jodhpur Lancers charged most gallantly. A number of Turks were speared, and many threw down their arms, only to pick them up again when the cavalry had passed through, and their weakness had become apparent. The squadrons were not strong enough to complete the victory, and were withdrawn till a larger force could be assembled. That night the Turkish rearguard withdrew to a position near Deir el Jemel, twenty miles north-west of Aleppo. The 5th 'Cavalry Division remained in observation, astride the roads leading from Aleppo to Killis and Katma, and occupied Muslimie Junction. It was too weak to continue the advance to Alexandretta till the arrival of the Australian Mounted Division, which had already left Damascus to join it. [1] Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Falls is an excellent source which may not agree with you Jim Sweeney. But its the sources that is important here, not your personal preferences. --Rskp (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources including Falls, not me, agree it was not a success. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney says "it was not a success." I see your problem now Jim Sweeney, you think there was only one engagement but there were two. The first, the cavalry charge against the retreating column was successful, the second against an entrenched redoubt was at first successful, but then wasn't. Do you understand now? There is NO ERROR here. --Rskp (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What first charge there was only one the brigade advance guard two Jodhpur squadrons arrived on the ridge at 11:00 and Harbord ordered an immediate attack. The Mysore Lancers supported by two squadrons of Jodhpur Lancers charged at noon. That's from the Brigade history if they charged twice it would be recorded and all the sources agree on there was only one charge. Even Falls your excellent source quoted above.[2] ?Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Desert Mounted Corps by Preston, pages 290-2 available on line also agrees there was only one charge.[3]. So that's Allenby the army commander, Chauvel the corps commander, Falls the official historian and the brigade history, all agree there was no second charge. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• • The article reflects the sources quoted. --Rskp (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you revisit your sources In this, the last engagement of the campaign the Mysore Lancers advanced with great dash in the face of artillery and subsequenty rifle fire, three squadrons in line of squadron columns, the fourth in support. The position held by a party of 150 Turks was carried about fifty of the enmy being speared and twenty prisoners taken. The Turks now disclosed far greater strength than had been anticipated and the regiment, coming under heavy fire fell back from the ridge. Lieutenant Colonel Holden who had ahlted the two Jodhpur squadrons in a fold of the ground in rear sent Major Lambert for news. [Falls 1930 Vol. 2 p. 615] Falls makes no mention of two charges. No other sources mention two charges. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Read the article read the quote above from Falls there was a charge and an attack on a redoubt which was at first successful then was defeated. --Rskp (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just where in Falls quote is there a charge and then an attack? Its pointless reading the article thats what this discussion is about the errors in it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As you are unwilling to accept there is an error - can I suggest you take this to WP:MILHIST for more opinions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Here. "From this position the lancer regiments saw a 1,000 strong Ottoman column retiring north of Aleppo along the Alexandretta road at about 11:00. Despite heavy enemy machine gun fire the Mysore and Jodhpur Lancers charged the column.[20][22]"

After that the rearguard position was charged. Sorry I thought I had clearly delineated this to you but obviously it was still to complicated. There is no error here. There were two separate attacks by the lancers. --Rskp (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Jim Sweeney, if you have sources which contradict this version of the attacks, by Bruce, Wavell and Falls, why don't you add them to the article instead of screaming error? Its Bruce, Wavell and Falls who you are accusing or error, not me. --Rskp (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And there is the error Falls does not mention two charges see above text you pasted, Bruce and Wavell are cited to only the one charge against the 1,000 strong Ottoman column retiring, what mention to they make of the supposed second charge? Do they say what regiments made the charge what were their casualties could it be they are describing the one charge in brief detail. Whenever I have attempted to change details in any article you edit you just revert, that's why I have brought it here. Once again can you post your replies at the end of the discussion not in the middle of it.

• Sources that contradict your two charge assumption
  • Armageddon, 1918: The Final Palestinian Campaign of World War I By Cyril Bentham Falls PAGES 147-148 only one charge made. [4]
  • A brief record of the advance of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force under the command of Gen Sir Edmund Hynman Allenby, July 1917 to October 1918. London: HMSO, 2nd edn 1919. PAGE 34 only one charge made. [5]
  • History of the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade during the Great War 1914-1918. London: HMSO, 1920. PAGES 29-31 only one charge made [6]
  • British Army despatches only document the one charge [7]
  • The Desert Mounted Corps by Preston, PAGES 290-2 only one charge .[8].
• So with the Falls pasted text above that's six high quality sources that document only one charge. Two by the official historian, two by the army commander, one the brigade history, one the Desert Mounted Corps history. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wavell and Bruce describe one charge by the Mysore and Jodhpur Lancers at a column of 1,000 retreating soldiers, [sources Wavell and Bruce]. The second charge occurred when the Mysore Lancers captured a redoubt held by 150 Ottoman soldiers is described by Falls. Subsequently the redoubt was successfully counterattacked by 2,000 reinforcements which is described by Bruce and Wavell. I say again, Jim Sweeney, there were two charges described in the literature quoted in this article. If you want to put your sources in the article, why don't you? --Rskp (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

OK text changed to comply with the brigade and official histories. Bruce and Wavells account is discredited as they are not reliable quoting no details of who did what or what the casualties were. You will also notice the new version is supported by Falls map. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney has made the following edits "(re write lede to comply with the majority of reliable sources)" here [9] then cuts a description of the battle which had quoted 4 reliable sources here [10] and rewrites it quoting ONLY THE BRIGADE HISTORY here.[11] How does this improve the article? --Rskp (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• (Personal attack removed) rolled back accusations of vandalism as unfounded see your commen at 01:11, 4 December 2012 If you want to put your sources in the article, why don't you? Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote the article Jim Sweeney, your invitation is interesting, to say the least. On 18 December I took you up and reinstated the information which had been contained in the article when it earned a B-class assessment. I see that on 19 December you have again cut information describing the operations which you say contradicts the facts known in several histories. You are of course referring to the brigade history and what else? Oh yes, something called HMSO 1920 whatever that is. --Rskp (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing is not cutting information, as normal you only see what you want, suggest you go back and read what written above. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wavell and Bruce

Unless Wavell and Bruce provide details of a second charge there account must be considered dubious. For example;

• What details do they give of casualties British and Turkish in the second charge.
• What details do they give of the squadrons involved.
• What details do they give of any fighting.
• What details do they give of the main charge documented in detail by other history's.
  • If as I suspect they do not give any details and all the official history's only document one charge their account must be viewed as misinterpretation. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Because you don't agree personally with the information provided by sources, is simply not a good enough reason to say eminent historians are dubious. --Rskp (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So they provide no details then? Wavell by the way is not a historian.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• A huge number of people would disagree with Jim Sweeney's assessment of General Wavell who went on to serve during WWII after writing his extremely popular and influential history of the Palestine campaign in 1933 which was still being reprinted in 1968, any historian's dream. --Rskp (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Still no response to the above questions then.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you waiting for details from Wavell and Bruce? But there is no need. These two reliable and reputable sources have been quoted accurately in the article. --Rskp (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If they provide no details they are not reliable. Especially when as you claim they refer to two charges when all the official histories only refer to one. With details of units involved, casualties, outcome etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Commanders in info box

This was a brigade action fought by the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade whose commander Harbord is not listed. What direct influence or command of this battle did Allenby the army commander, Chavel a corps commander and Buffin another corps commander have on it. Same on the Ottoman side the commander was Mustapha Kemal Pasha why are all the others listed when they had no command of the battle. Also why is the German flag used agree there were German officers and troops in the campaign, what evidence is there that any were involved in this battle. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The brigade did not act alone, it was part of a divisional and corps advance. --Rskp (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again the brigade fought this battle only aided by the armoured cars. The division and corps advance is immaterial as they were not present. Read the article the battle was over by the time the 14th Brigade arrived. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Battles in infobox

This Charge at Haritan occurred during the Pursuit to Haritan and was also part of the Final Offensive but Jim Sweeney keeps cutting references to the broader context of this article. Why? His answer "SEE TEMPLATE DOCUMENTION FOR WHAT GOES IN THIS FIELD" whatever that means. --Rskp (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny enough it means exactly what it says

• Quote partof – optional – the larger conflict containing the event described in the article. For battles or campaigns, this should be the war during which the event takes place; for particularly large wars, this may include a theatre (e.g. "the Eastern Front of World War II"). For wars, the parameter may be used to link to a larger group of wars (e.g. the Italian War of 1521–26 to the Italian Wars). It may be necessary to insert "the" before the name of the war for proper grammar. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Haritan was part of a larger conflict, the Pursuit to Haritan. Why don't you want anyone to know? --Rskp (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Another socalled consensus has decreed that only the Middleeastern theatre can be mentioned in the infobox so I bow to the threesome's greater knowledge. --Rskp (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Stalemate

The claim to a stalemate being established and in operation during the 3 days between this engagement and the day the war ended, is not supported by a source or sense.--Rskp (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Its supported by the description of the conflict. The Indians charged retreated and observed the Turkish position. The Turkish likewise did nothing other than dig new trenches and observed the Indians, then withdrew of their own accord. Neither side won or lost but sat watching each other for the rest of the day. STALEMATE or a DRAW suggest stalemate is more encyclopaedic. The ending of the war three days later has nothing to do with this battle. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No Jim Sweeney its not a stalemate, because the Australian Mounted Division was in the process of advancing to reinforce the 5th Cavalry Division. --Rskp (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes the conflict ended in a stalemate, just because other forces were advancing and arrived after the Ottoman forces had already left, unhindered, makes no difference to this battle. That lasted for a few hours on one day. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney, what is the source on which you base your claim? --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The brigade history, the corps history and the official British history. Read the above. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

None of these mention "stalemate" only you. If you have published somewhere why don't you add yourself as a source? --Rskp (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Its inferred by the text and replaced the claim to victory which was also unsourced. But as the field is optional remove it if you like.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is original research Jim Sweeney. How can you call it a stalemate/draw when one side has lost its empire and with its back to the wall is now defending its homeland? --Rskp (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Where in this battle did anyone lose an empire? Suggest you read the article again. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

degradation of Battle section

The following discussion regarding this article cut by Jim Sweeney from his talk page before it could be concluded and is therefore copied here.

You made the following edits "(re write lede to comply with the majority of reliable sources)" here [12] then cuts a description of the battle which had quoted 4 reliable sources here [13] and then you rewrite the description of the battle quoting ONLY THE BRIGADE HISTORY here.[14] How can you think this is an improvement? --Rskp (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See article talk re Wavell and Bruce reliability. Do you not think the brigade histoty is an RS?.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wavell and Bruce are both reliable sources. But you have cut information from Falls and Preston too. You have deleted the whole description of the battle and then add a new description based on the brigade history. That's very poor form. It should have been incorporated into the existing description. --Rskp (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

See article talk its what you suggested. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. --Rskp (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was but its better now. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

How can a brigade history's view be better than a balanced view based on a number of historians? --Rskp (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

How can it not.Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Its clear from your userpage that you are a very experienced editor who is knowledgeable in the ways of Wikipedia. You know all the Wikipedia guidelines about sources. So why are you doing this? --Rskp (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

dubious source

The history of the brigade which had been used to rewrite the battle section of this article is unidentified. While this anonymous source has been added the reputable secondary sources which earned this article a B-class have been questioned and cut by Jim Sweeney. The guidelines for inline citations in MOS do not mention anonymous sources, so why does Jim Sweeney identify the publishers? Anonymous sources are not mentioned in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources or Wikipedia:Verifiability. This brigade history appears to be a dubious source which needs to be deleted. --Rskp (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain just how this publication is dubious. History of the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade during the Great War 1914-1918. His Majesty's Stationary Office (H.M.S.O.). 1920 Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the unit's official history (there's no named author, but I wouldn't call it anonymous per se - it's effectively an official publication). I've added a link to a digitised copy. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The publication does not claim official history status. It does not claim to be written on the basis of the unit's war diaries. It has been written anonymously by an individual who did not quote any references and does not refer to any of the 15th Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade war diaries. Being printed by the government printers does not give this dubious, anonymous source credibility. --Rskp (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

IWM lists it in their cataologue under "official publications" [15] GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And the Europeana project identifies it (via its BL record?) as Crown Copyright[16]GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So that's a 3-1 consensus, here, that the publication is not dubious. You can always take it elsewhere for more input, but I suggest until then the tag is removed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems implicitly a reliable source to me, given the context - bear in mind that it was published by HMSO, not merely printed by them (they seem to have contracted the physical printing out to a third party); this is a fairly clear indicator of some level of official status/approval even though the phrase isn't used anywhere. (They wouldn't simply have republished an anonymous and unsupported MS.) Regarding anonymity, while most unit histories did list a named author (or at least a nominal editor), it wasn't unknown for there to be no name given, or for the unit to be credited as the nominal author. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• The trouble here is that this anonymous source is being taken as the primary source, while the accounts by Wavell, Bruce and Falls have been discounted and cut. --Rskp (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)