Jump to content

Talk:British occupation of the Jordan Valley

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

Original Research

[edit]

This article uses several unpublished war diaries, and using them for references is original research. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding discussion of this issue Jim Sweeney raised at the Battle of Mughar Ridge talk page, for the benefit of readers. The discussion acknowledges that there is no original research attached to using these war diaries and there was no interpretation.


Per RS noticeboard - consider them reliable for individual experiences, but not for most factual information. Also some have been accepted at FAC, so caution in use required. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete other members post from talk pages. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will you respect talk page guidelines and stop deleting other editors posts. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over use of quotes

[edit]

The quotes used in this article have been removed reducing it from 80,300 down to 66,400 bytes. Almost a quarter of the entire article, that infringes on copyright. Some of the quotes were not documenting significant events, but letters written to family. IF the content needs to be replaced it should be in the editors own words. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I wasn't able to be there, those who were, are the best sources for describing what it was like to occupy the Jordan Valley during the summer of 1918. I have paraphrased where I could but really, cutting the tour of duty was pretty close to the wind, and I can't decide why you were not able to do the job yourself. --Rskp (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you have almost replaced them word for word, back up to 78,700 bytes. That's 12,400 bytes of quotes!! Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jim. This level of quotation is unacceptable (not to mention lazy). Most historians weren't present at the battles they chronicle but that doesn't stop those that are actually serious about maintaining academic standards from writing about those events using there own words. This issue has been brought up elsewhere by a number of editors and its not going to go away by ignoring it. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that quotes from individuals - though they give a good flavour and are illustrative - are not necessarily indicative of the overall situation. Better to quote a historian who said the conditions were terrible and then a snippet or two of eg a soldier's words to his relative than use a primary source alone, even if that primary source material is quoted in another book. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed if we examine this one Well, it’s a hard job to get tobacco over here, so I am going to ask you to send me over three tins every month. Of course, you can make a little parcel of it as well. Also the “Wedderburn Express”; it is about the best old paper to read, although it is called “the rag”. We have got a change from wet blankets now; we have them dusty and full of grass seeds. They prick a bit, but you soon get used to it, and if you are without sleep for a few nights you don’t mind the pricks at all. I have a new address now, but will still get the letters that are on the way by the old one. J----- was giving me a bit of a “kid” about my letter writing. I don’t know whether you think the same, but I hope the news contained within them will let you see that I am still going strong, and have not forgotten any of you, although you are so far away.

So its a soldier complaining he does not have enough to smoke and is short of sleep. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The historians are quoted as much as possible about the conditions, the illnesses etc. with only quotes from individuals which add to the historians or which illustrate notable experiences. The lack of tobacco would have been experienced by the vast majority of the troopers as many of them smoked tobacco. And the mention of a local paper from home, illustrates another universal interest the troopers would have had in finding out what was happening at home. --Rskp (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes and tag removed, see if the info can be replaced where required in editors own words.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More padding

[edit]
The quotes aside what makes this notable for inclusion?
  • One such evacuee was A. E. Illingworth, Trooper 1682a who had been born at Gurley, NSW in 1875 and farmed at "Oaklands", Narrabri West, landed at Suez on 19 January 1917 aged 42 years and was taken to the 12th Light Horse Regiment training camp at Moascar. On 3 March 1917 he transferred to the 4th Light Horse Regiment at Ferry Post and was in the field until he became ill from pyrexia on 8 June 1918 when he was admitted to 31 General Hospital, Abbassia on 15 June. After treatment he rejoined his regiment on 20 July at Jericho and remained in the field until returning to Australia on the "Essex" on 15 June 1919. He died at Narrabri in May 1924.

The only connection to this article is a soldier got sick for six weeks in 1918.

And this one
  • Among the many wounded while on patrol during tours of duty, was Lance Corporal J. A. P. (Jim) McIntyre, regimental number 1621. He had been made a temporary corporal at Beersheba on 3 November 1917 and was promoted to that rank at Solomon Pools on 24 June 1918. He was wounded in action when on patrol near Auja on 22 July 1918 and admitted to the 31 General Hospital, Abbassia for treatment to a bullet wound in his abdomen; he was on the dangerously ill from 8 August until 17 August. He returned to Australia on "Leicestershire" 22 December 1918.

One of thousands of wounded soldiers. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'occupation' threatened not only the health of the soldiers as Illingworth illustrates but it was a dangerous place which McIntyre illustrates. Without these examples the occupation could be misunderstood. --Rskp (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the core element is useful as an illustration of conditions, what relevancy to their illnesses is there in birthplace, pre-war occupation, post-war death, or military career trajectory? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Illingworth died just five years later. The conditions were pretty terrible. But I agree, this article does need quite a lot of work. --Rskp (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change of article name without discussion

[edit]

Changing the name of this article to the British occupation of the valley is misleading as the British occupied the front line from the Mediterranean Sea across the Judean Hills, not in the valley. They were instead British Empire troops from India, Australia and New Zealand. The former name of this article was not misleading, as there has only ever in the history of the Jordan Valley, been one occupation. Please move this article back to its original name. --Rskp (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists the garrisoning units here: "The Jordan Valley was garrisoned in 1918 by the 20th (Imperial Service) Infantry Brigade, the Anzac Mounted Division and the Australian Mounted Division, until 17 May when the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions arrived. They took over the outposts in the sector outside the Ghoraniyeh bridgehead while the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade held the bridgehead.[Note 2] In August these troops were joined at the beginning of the month by the newly formed 1st and 2nd Battalions British West Indies Regiment, in the middle of the month by the 38th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers (the 39th would follow later), both part of the Jewish Legion and towards the end of August by British Indian Army cavalry units.[7][11][15] This force included a section of the Light Armoured Motor Brigade." --Rskp (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with the user who moved it. I'm guessing it's to distance the article from more recent events eg Israeli settlement on the West Bank. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They were also all under British command, so I would suggest the title is accurate.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Roslyn - can't understand your objection here. As far as I can tell you uploaded the original article with the name "Occupation of the Jordan Valley" with the recent name change by another editor just adding "British" to that title. Yet above you object to it saying "the British occupied the front line... not in the valley" (my emphasis). Gilabrand's move looks reasonable to me as it would seem best to specify who occupied the area (and he/she/they have maintained you previous title). So any inaccuracy there would seem to have been yours. That said I would imagine that if you now have an alternative name you wish to propose that this could be discussed with them and a consensus reached. Anotherclown (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]