Talk:Battle of Haifa (1918)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Haifa (1918) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	World War I task force

Haifa Day[edit]

It may be worth noting that in recent years Haifa Day has been commemorated in the city itself; see, eg, here. It's not clear if it's commemorated by the regiments involved or by the Army as a whole, and if so, why this particular battle - did it mark a particularly significant step in the Army's history? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

The infobox is according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears." Jim Sweeney interprets this very narrowly indeed while I think its an opportunity to give a good indication of what the article is about. Cutting the division and corps to which the protagonists belong in World War I is a very narrow approach, with which I disagree. Jim Sweeney is cutting relevant information to do with the subject of the article which is almost a hundred years old. As such every opportunity should not be lost in making this article as accessible to readers as possible, not more opaque than it already is. Please stop your negative practice, Jim Sweeney. --Rskp (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you linked it I presume you have read it the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears This was not a division or a corps battle but an engagement by one brigade under it own commander. Listing anything else is not relevant and off focus. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This battle was not an isolated fight, it was part of the 5th CD's campaign during the Battle of Sharon and the infobox should reflect that as the article does. Similarly the defenders should be identified as much as is possible. By the last day of the Battle of Megiddo Yildirim Army and the name of the garrison are both more helpful than the nothing you want. PS. If you had read my primary post you might have seen that I too quoted the salient phrase although initially without emphasis. --Rskp (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you are wrong THIS article is about the battle of Haifa nothing else. The 5th Cavalry Division and the battle of Sharon have their own articles. If we do not know who the Haifa commander was we do not make something up, other editors might have that detail and add it.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is for summarising the battle. If higher formations are not directly involved it makes little sense to put that in the infobox. The article text is for that content. If Haifa is considered to be part of the overall Battle of Sharon, and that is something that wants to be stressed in the infobox then it would be better to put that in the "part of" parameter for the Infobox in place of Palestine and Sinai campaign (whose nav box is directly below the infobox).GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jim Sweeney, YOU ARE WRONG. The Battle of Haifa, WAS part of the Battle of Sharon. Saying Liman von Sanders was the commander of the Haifa garrison is not making something up. He commanded Yildirim Army Group and on this LAST DAY OF THE BATTLE OF SHARON you can not expect the loosing formations to be delineated any more clearly than that. von Sanders and Yildirim Army Group should be in the infobox, along with Allenby et al. --Rskp (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox did reflect the correct status of this battle [1], as part of Sharon and Megiddo but its been cut, probably by Jim Sweeney who is the primary cutter of information in articles linked to the Sinai and Palestine campaign. See his attempts to cut a whole subsection from three articles here [2] --Rskp (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The battle of Sharon was part of the Battle of Megiddo which was part of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. Liman von Sanders was the Ottoman Army commander do you have any evidence that he was directly involved in commanding the Ottoman forces in Haifa. As you have brought it up re being the primary cutter of information that link shows a community decision and consensus to delete content not relevant to those articles. The only reason that it was not done is that you resulted to edit warring. Now can you keep this discussion on topic the battle of Haifa. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now rather than acknowledging that Haifa was part of Sharon JIM SWEENEY has cut it back to being part of WW1 like oh, any and all other engagements of the First World War to which it related in the broader sense = nonsense. Liman von Sanders was at the time commander of the Yildirim Army Group which included the 4th, 7th, 8th armies AND the Haifa Garrison. Are you seriously demanding a source for that? :) --Rskp (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template documentation for the info box states its for the conflict/war or theatre of war in larger conflicts. Yes he was the commander of the army thats not in dispute but he was not the commander of the Haifa garrison or have any directs control of the Ottoman troops in the battle.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a brigade battle commanded by Harbord the info box has been changed to reflect this can any changes be discussed first as prev requested. There is no rational for having teh army commander or EEF listed.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney, why do you keep cutting links in the infobox to the battles and campaigns the Haifa fighting was part of? There is one rationale for having the commanders mentioned in the inforbox because they took the decision to order Harbord to attack Haifa, and in the case of the defenders, Liman von Sanders took the decision to defend it. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case we can add the Prime Minister and CIGS for Great Britain and they took the decision over Allenby. Harbord conducted the battle without any oversight from a senior commander. Same with the Ottoman side Liman von Sanders was the army commander had no direction over the defence during the battle or was even present and its doubtful he was even aware of the attack.Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious sources[edit]

See Charge at Haritan for discussion. --Rskp (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you forgot the link. Talk:Charge_at_Haritan#dubious_source GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]