User talk:Jim Sweeney
|This is Jim Sweeney's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Jim Sweeney.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
|Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!|
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
Invitation to participate in an interview
Hi Jim, I'd like to invite you to participate in a group interview in the upcoming August issue of the Military History Wikiproject's newsletter, The Bugle, with editors who work on articles concerning World War I. We're conducting this interview to mark the centenary of the war, and it forms part of a semi-regular series of interviews on thematic topics. If you're able to participate, I'd be grateful if you could post responses to the questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2014/Interview by next Sunday 17 July. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant 10 August, not 17 July. I shouldn't be typing anything with a heavy cold! Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
For Mr Sweeney
A number of interested parties are concerned that the Wikipedia entry for Operation Frankton is not accurate while also not decently reflecting the importance of this operation. The current entry is lightweight and not wholly correct – much against the ideals of Wikipedia I would have thought.
One question that is being passed around those of us who care passionately about the memory of Raikes and his sailors and Hasler and his marines is by what authority do you comment on what are the well-established facts? In addition to Lucas Philips and S-Tailyour I also knew Raikes and Hasler and over the years corresponded with Bull. Consequently I have been an almost life-long student of the Frankton story. Ashdown, Lyman and Rees did not have the privilege of knowing these men – especially Rees who by default allows his readers to assume that he interviewed Raikes whereas he has simply lifted material from the book Blondie; much without accreditation.
In that regard you should know that the Royal Marines Historical Society has produced five pages of errors, examples of copyright infringement and plagiarism in Rees’s book. Yet, reading Wikipedia it would appear that Rees’s book is the only publication worthy of being quoted on Wikipedia. Ashdown and Lyman have, between them, produced first-rate, learned works that more than do justice to the operation and, as such, they will have to appear in the entry in due course as reliable sources. For Rees’s book, with its inaccuracies and plagiarisms, to have the monopoly of quotes is not good.
You say that the submarine’s log, as prime research material, is not admissible. I can point you to many Wikipedia entries where such formal, official documents are the sole source of accurate information. Southby-Tailyour quotes direct from Tuna’s log (and I can verify that this is correct) and while Ashdown and Lyman do not quote the log directly their timings are well within an acceptable timescale. Nowhere (other than from Rees) is the time of 1730 mentioned - and it wouldn't be for this would have been be far too close to sunset which on 7 December at Bordeaux was roughly 1721 (local). It is simply not credible that ‘other sources’ differing by two hours can be quoted and particularly so as the footnote links this error to Tailyour’s account which I don’t suppose will please him too much.
- Wikipedia does not use primary sources, suggest you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for articles and your conversations with Tom Dick and Harry bear no weight. I do not have any authority and neither does anyone else, Wikipedia does not work like that. You keep saying Rees is unreliable but have failed to provide any evidence. Instead of edit warring why have you failed to take your concerns to the talk page as has been suggested by more than one editor. If you can improve the article, using reliable sources, go ahead. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)