Talk:Battle of Jaffa (1917)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contents of article copied from another Wikipedia article

The editor who created this article has done so using copied material from the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article without acknowledgement and without even a link to that article.--Rskp (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes some of its taken from the aftermath section of that battle. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, most of it is taken from the Battle of Jerusalem aftermath section, because this battle occurred during the aftermath of the battle for Jerusalem, and that is the appropriate place for this operation. Its my understanding that the guidelines for new articles state that they are not to be copied from existing Wikipedia articles. If this is the case you might think about deleting this article ASAP.--Rskp (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This was a separate battle recognised by the British, for which it was awarded its own battle honour. This is taking WP:OWN a bit far is no one now allowed to create articles without your approval.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Battles Nomenclature Committee's report which was approved by the British Army Council, describes it as a subsidiary battle. As such it is more correctly described within the Battle of Jerusalem (1917). All this just because you didn't like me changing your red link on the Sinai and Palestine Campaign template to a functioning link. Talk about WP:OWN!! The vast majority of the material you have used in this second generation article has been copied from the Battle of Jerusalem article. (Personal attack removed) --Rskp (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That's just you opinion - its recognised a a battle in its own right with the award of a battle honour to the units fighting in it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wildly inaccurate claim

Its been claimed in this article that the Battle of Jaffa ended the Sinai and Palestine campaign. This claim has been removed because its completely and wildly inaccurate. (Personal attack removed) --Rskp (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again comment on content not on editors. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the personal attack - I was wrong and I'm sorry. However, this wildly inaccurate claim regarding the Battle of Jaffa ending the Sinai and Palestine campaign does not instill confidence in the veracity of this article, particularly when another editor had to draw attention to this gaff. It might seem easy to copy someone else' research but without understanding the literature such errors are always going to be a potential embarrassment. --Rskp (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

proposed merge

The topic of this article has already been covered in the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) and should be merged. --Rskp (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No it should not its a seperate battle on different days for which the participents were awarded the seperate battle honour JAFFA. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no new material, it has all been covered in the Battle of Jerusalem 1917 article. --Rskp (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That just means that article is off focus. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You are forgetting the Battle of Jerusalem 1918 article has been awarded GA standing which means it has been reviewed by an editor who could find no problem with focus. While your opinion is interesting, its not the only one - please read WP:OWN and review your activities in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign area of Wikipedia, where the main idea is to improve articles by adding material from sources and citing those sources, not copying material and sources from other articles already on Wikipedia. --Rskp (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not forgetting anything, that article a collection of battles, which should be split off into their own articles with a summery added.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is your point of view. What is it based on? What sources can you quote in support of this view? The Battle of Jerusalem 1918 article is not long and in its current form reflects the literature quoted in it. If you cut this article up then you will be left with a series of artificial stubs which will confuse readers. Is this what you want? --Rskp (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No its the point of view of historians and the British authorities.

• The Battle of Nabi Samweil (20 - 24 November) recognised as a battle in its own right by the award of the battle honour Nabi Samweil to the units involved
• The Capture of Jerusalem (7 - 9 December) recognised as a battle in its own right by the award of the battle honour Jerusalem to the units involved.
• The Battle of Jaffa (21 - 22 December) recognised as a battle in its own right by the award of the battle honour Jaffa to the units involved.
• The British do not award different battle honours for the same battle, hence the award of the three above.
• The article Battle of Jerusalem says it all - officially named the "Jerusalem Operations" by the British it was several battles not one.
• Jerusalem is also very big almost 90,000 bytes, the recommended size is around 30,000. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

120,000 bytes is too large. I'd be very interested to know where you found the recommendation for 30,000. But this is now all academic as the article has been substantially re edited by another editor. --Rskp (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Two flies were crawling up a wall... WP:LENGTH#Readability issues 30–50kb is recommended, the lower the better, and is a guideline, not policy. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 09:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• • The creator of this article went against Wikipedia policy by copying whole sections from the Battle of Jerusalem article which that particular editor had no part in uploading to Wikipedia. --Rskp (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You are claiming a lack of attribution? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No. I am claiming the creator of this article used information copied from an already existing article; the Battle of Jerusalem. I believe this practice of duplication is against Wikipedia policy. The creator of this Jaffa article had no part in writing the Jerusalem article. --Rskp (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)