Talk:Siege of Kut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: 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: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Ottoman military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force

	Turkey Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Siege of Kut:
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

[edit] Kut-al-Amara or just Kut?

How should it go in the top of the battle box? Tiquicia 01:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just Kut, To the extent the battle is remembered, "Siege of Kut" is the best known name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nunquam Dormio (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Aftermath, last sentence.

"In a few short months, the city of Kut was reborn with a growing population of two hundred [3]."

1. I think "In a few short months" is not encyclopedialike and ugly, maybe that's just me but it's certainly not very precise. 2. According to the article the pre-siege population was around 6500. If it was reborn in 1917 with a population of 200 something big should have happened to the population, this is however not mentioned. 3. The previous sentence says 'slowly rebuild' and receiving funds for reconstructing. While this doesn't flatly contradict the last sentence it is at odds with it.

Come to think of it, last-but-one-sentence "..while those citizens who had lost family in the siege received funds for the reconstruction of their homes". Does it mean all citizens that met this criteria? Wat if a citizen lost family but their homes were intact?, wat if someone's house was destroyed but had no family? I think the sentence is vague and probably not true.

If these sentences are very well sourced they should be reworded, if not & in the meantime I think the end should be replaced by "..war torn country and Kut was slowly rebuild." Not much I admit but also not dubious.

Pukkie (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

"Some of the Indian prisoners of war from Kut later came to join the Turkish Indian Volunteer Corps under the influence of Deobandis of Tehrek e Reshmi Rumal and the abject support of the German High Command." I really can't see why this should be described as "abject". I have changed "abject support" to "encouragement". Maproom (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)