Talk:Battle of Mersa Matruh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

CE

Tidied layout, tidied prose, blammed a few typos, changed a few words to BritEng and revamped the citations and footnotes that had loadsa red on.Keith-264 (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gunbird, is it something I said? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reference fixes are fine, and some of the phrasing, but re-writing the whole article seems a bit much. Photograph choices, their placement, phrasing, word choice, much of this is just personal preference. The text is based on the citated references, so when you change the wording you have moved away from what was referenced. I would say just slow down. There is no rush. We will get it right in time. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise that it was a new article and did a ce because of that; I thought you'd linked it to the WDC page because it had been overlooked. Photos aren't supposed to go on both sides leaving text in the middle and I added some maps etc for clarity. I didn't realise it was being written by an American or I wouldn't have been as severe on the prose (it's a lost cause ;O)), with gun and bird in your moniker I thought you were an English squaddie. What I did was alter the paraphrase, not the meaning but I'm happy to stand corrected. I realised rather late in the ce that the article was a work in progress but didn't want to leave it half done.

I'm not quite sure but I think that if you add a reference with a year and an orig-year, harv recognises one and not the other but you won't see that unless you have a page like User:Keith-264/common.js with the script for harv errors on it. I did them as |ref={{harvid|Liddell Hart|1970}} with the year that worked, because sfn is the only citation method I really know. If you're looking for sources, Scoullar in further reading is rather good. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I no sooner bring this article into being and not a day goes by before you are attempting to rewrite the thing. The prose are intended to convey a narrative, and they are a reflection of the sources cited. Thus when Mellenthin says 21st Panzer took advantage of an "artillery duel" to reach a flanking position, he is stating that both sides were shelling each other. If you change it to "21st Panzer used an artillery bombardment" then it suggests the Germans were shelling the New Zealanders and forced them to hunker down, which was not the case. They were quite active. So I used Mellenthin's phrasing and that choice did not occur by accident. The section heading "British plans" is another example. The British (or at least the Auch) were looking to take the Germans in flank. It was not supposed to be fought purely as a defensive battle, though it ended up being fought that way. Thus when you mention British plans you have to leave room for the offensive actions the Auch was hoping for. It did not occur that way most likely because Auchinleck was at Eighth Army HQ and was too far away to influence the battle, whereas Rommel was present at the event and could. So though I have not overtly mentioned the command style difference between the German method of command of mobile formations verses the British method of command (as that is not the purpose of the article) the fact of the matter is that the information is there. The Frontier, Mersa Matruh, Fuka were all defensive positions which fell, not because the Afrika Corps was stronger in numbers but because it was operating at a higher tempo. This is not overtly explained, but it is there for those that are able to see it. Another example of changes that cloud the narrative rather than clarify it would be 4th New Zealand Brigade's attack upon the 21st Panzer. The New Zealanders undertook this attack with bayonets fixed. Muliptle sources record this. It was an unusual occurance in the Second World War, but the fact itself conveys a meaning, both at the time the Kiwis made the attack, and today when we are reading about it. To eliminate that fact from the narrative, despite the sourcing provided to support it, weakens the narrative flow and makes it more difficult for the reader to understand what happened and why. Unless you check the source and find an inaccuracy I would prefer if you would presume good faith and leave it be. As to images, though right side posting of photos is generally prefered, photos can be posted on either side of the page, and in my opinion it can be visually helpful to do so. Just slow down a tad and we will get it right. That is my primary goal. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't rewrite the thing, I copy edited it, under a mistaken impression, not an assumption of bad faith. I have changed my behaviour now that you have explained things. I agree that Wiki allows pics the left but not level to one on the right and your changes have followed that (it's in WP: somewhere) so I've got what I can reasonably expect; disliking them on the left is a preference not a policy. I think there's a journalistic convention, that if the subject of the photo is facing left it goes on the right and if vice-versa it goes on the left, that you might want to consider. Now that I know that you write in American, I can see that the article wasn't as littered with spelling mistakes and linguistic infelicities as I'd thought, when I was under the impression that it was in English. Have you considered working on it in a sandbox before posting it as an article? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You copy edited it and removed things that were important to the text, and not because you had read the source and thought it was misrepresented, but because you thought how you were phrasing it was "better". The phrasing you picked out was not better. It took away detail that was intended to be in the piece, and in doing so it clouded the narrative and made it harder for a reader to understand what happened and why. This is the third time you have insulted me over your impression of the apparently poor quality of "American" writing. It's small minded, and grasps at a superiority that does not exist. The thing is written in English. Sandbox? The article was created on a user page. If you wish to get on with the other editors who are attempting to contribute you may want to rethink how you go about reaching out to them.Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming bad faith now and that's not fair; "reaching out" (sic) is a reciprocal process. I found your vocabulary to be riddled with slang, your prose sloppy and some of your sentences incoherent. I haven't insulted you, I've explained my reasons and that I was under a misapprehension of my own making. I've made allowances for the differences between American and English usage and all you've done is parade indignation. I think you'd use your time better installing a spell-checker to spot typos.Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[1] see here for article structure.Keith-264 (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gunbirddriver, there is the guts of a good article here for which you should be commended but I do agree with Keith-264 in that there is room for some improvement in the tone and narrative flow. I understand that this is a work in progress and will be happy to give you a hand. In this respect, I see Rommel is used as a source in places. While OK when expressing opinions of Rommel, eg. note 14, its use elsewhere is problematic and I'm sure more recent and authoritative sources could be found. For example, with respect to note 33, the rank for Inglis is incorrect, he was a brigadier. Given the cite, I assume that this comes from Rommel (the spelling of Inglis' given name is wrong as well but that may be a typo). It should be easy to find alternative sources though and I should be able to find one for the subject matter relating to note 33. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It has not been that easy to source. I have been unable to establish strengths prior to the battle, or losses suffered, other than mentions here and there of prisoners captured. 21st Panzer certainly suffered losses in the battle with 2nd New Zealand, and 90th Light in its movements sweeping around Matruh and then in the night battles of July 28/29, but I cannot find the figures. Thanks for the fixes on Inglis. I think the citations from Rommel are okay. Some of those are actually notes by Liddell Hart, but I was unsure how to indicate that in the citation. Playfair mentions the command change for 2nd New Zealand, and I can add that citation. If something else looks off and we cannot find another source to support it we should make the change. I would appreciate the help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strengths and losses

I don't think we are going to be able to get accurate numbers for strengths at the outset and losses suffered, but there are bits and pieces that can be found. Scoullar notes there were about 300 men buried at Minqar Qaim. These were from the 21st Panzer's 104th Infantry Regiment. (p. 83)

  • Scoullar, J L Battle for Egypt, the summer of 1942 Wellington, War History Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs, (1955). Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Mersa_Matruh&oldid=1199639191"