Talk:Second Battle of El Alamein/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

That picture

The caption of the first photograph at present reads; "24 October 1942: Soldiers of the 9th Australian Infantry [my emphasis] Division in a posed attack", which on examination of the original, says: British infantry.... There is also no mention of a "posed attack", (as commented on above), either Australian or British.
Which is correct?

RASAM (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There's a citation somewhere that it's Australian soldiers attacking their cookhouse for the photographer.Keith-264 (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but when the photo itself is clicked, the text reads: "British soldiers...", are you saying that it is wrong?

RASAM (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably but I don't know where I saw it, I think it's a still from a newsreel. I'll have a look through some books to see. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it would be nice to know one way or the other - do you think you could do something to the picture's history? (I wouldn't know how). Regards

RASAM (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Tried to find a reliable reference for Kieth-264 assertion (which I had heard before). Many sites indicate that Sgt. Len Chetwyn(the British photographer) did stage behind the lines phots and this one used Australian troops to simulate an infantry attack. One possible ref in a book to this is: is: 'North Africa and the Middle East 1942-1944 : El Alamein, Tunisia, Algeria and Operation Torch' by John Grehan, Martin Mace, Sara Mitchell. Juan Riley (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Juan, I've looked through a few books but nothing yet, the rest are out of reach for the moment. Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Searching on Len Chetwyn (apparently his camera crew was called 'Chet's circus') does bring up a lot on the staging. But yes the books are mostly behind firewalls.Juan Riley (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Just being a wee bit of a gadfly...

A "British victory"? Given the infobox details? Shall we, User:Keith-264, revisit all the battles of WWII and substitute the "main protagonist" for "allies"? Juan Riley (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

The choice of term should reflect what the sources say.Keith-264 (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Should we then apply that rubric to say (pulling a a rabbit out of my hat) Battle of the Coral Sea , etc. ? Juan Riley (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Supportive????

You all do realize where this leads? [Perhaps to people saying better actually read a history book than believe the crap I see on WP? Which would be good.] But I meant it as an example to be used on other pages. Juan Riley (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Bumfuq, Eqypt?

I have heard that the origin of the common phrase "BFE" originated in the buildup for the Second Battle Of El Alamein. The destination for the dummy pipeline was allegedly Bumfuq. I recollect seeing a map of Egypt with a dot representing a hamlet or oasis with this name in southwest Eqypt. Can anyone confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.212.236 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

CE

Changed the errant harvnb Playfair cites to sfn for simplicity after someone botched a format conversion then managed to duplicate the article when transferring back from Word; think that's sorted out now. Will continue as and when.Keith-264 (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Two proposals

First things first, can we get an archive for this talk page? And second, I propose that we move the staged photograph elsewhere in the article and put one that was taken during legitimate battle. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Agree agree, someone on the Milhist talk page will know how to add an archive.Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If there's support for an archive, I can add it. Anyone object to auto archive ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Second Battle of El Alamein. 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Decisive

The analysis had the word decisive in it but this wasn't supported by the Churchill citation. Sometimes it's used as a synonym for big and sometimes it is used in the Clausewitzian sense of war-determining, the point (with hindsight) that the result of a war became inevitable. I think we should use the latter sense to avoid hyperbole in the infobox. I suggest that the proper result is British victory since this is what the RS say. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Decisive is cited in the lede which warrants its inclusion. There are plenty more to be added if necessary, unless a consensus says otherwise. Shire Lord (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the lead is derived from the article, which should be a description of the RS. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Good then I'm happy to leave as is. Shire Lord (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The victory at El Alamein led to what IIRC is still the longest advance by an army (the 8th Army) in military history, from the Suez Canal to as far as Tunisia. That's fairly decisive.

IIRC, the above fact was at one time/may still be, in the Guinness Book of Records, or one of the specialised offshoots of it - 'The Guinness Book of Military Facts and Feats' or some similar title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.211 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No it isn't, decisive doesn't mean big, it means war determining. The Second World War was determined around Smolensk in August-September 1941; superlatives are not what the infobox is for. Module talk:Infobox military conflict has a couple of discussions you might find interesting at the bottom. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Keith-264: What happened in Smolensk at thr end of 1941, btw? —SerialNumberParanoia/^{cheap shit room} 09:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Just my two cents..but I agree with User:Keith-264. If anything then perhaps Stalingrad (I will have to know more to say Smolensk). Another example: Midway. IJN could still fight to a near draw around the Solomons for the next 6-7 months. I aint courageous enough tho to pull the "decisive" there--yet. :) Juan Riley (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It was decisive because it led to the ultimate expulsion of the Axis from the African continent. Before El Alamein the Allies had been in retreat. After El Alamein they advanced. It led to the Invasions of Sicily and Italy. From El Alamein on, the Western Allies were winning. "Before El Alamein we never had a victory. After it, we never had a defeat." - Winston Churchill.

I'd say the expulsion of the enemy from an entire continent was fairly decisive. El Alamein made that possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Decisive means war determining, it isn't journalistic hyperbole. The victory in N Africa was big but not decisive, it didn't change the course of the war, that occurred around Smolensk in 1941. Keith-264 (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

"Decisive means war determining" - no it doesn't. It means it decided something. El Alamein decided the eventual expulsion of Axis forces from North Africa.

Before the battle the Axis were advancing towards the Suez Canal, which they intended to take. After El Alamein however, they retreated, and they continued to retreat all the way to Tunisia, etc., and then to Sicily, and then Italy. From El Alamein onwards, the Axis were on the run in that theatre. They were losing. That makes it decisive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.56 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite agree, the decisive battle of the war was Smolensk 1941 but try explaining that to someone addicted to hyperbole. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Per infobox guidelines, adding "decisive" isn't generally helpful. It's a subjective description, so for us to state it as a simple one-word fact in an infobox requires an over-abundance of RSs to specifically use that description. If basically all sources state it as "decisive", then it can go in the infobox. If not, it must not go in. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see the result of you pointing that out on the Battle of France talk page. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this asking if my opinion would apply equally to other articles? I'd definitely say yes; we should follow the RSs, as always. If this is asking why all other articles don't always follow this, then I'm not so sure; there seems to be many editors that want to "fix" infoboxes to give popular (or even fan-based) opinions rather than universally acknowledged facts, even though this is contrary to the whole purpose of infoboxes. I don't bother to make this a personal campaign, though. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

All too often the term is used improperly, in an unscholarly yet Wiki point of view. As you say, life's too short. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)