Jump to content

Talk:Capture of Jisr ed Damieh

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

Clarification

[edit]

Jim Sweeney states regarding Falls overview of available German and Ottoman sources: "While this may have been true when Falls wrote his history, has nothing else been published in the last 82 years." We are talking about original sources for the German and Ottoman side of the fighting. These documents have not be found and publish in the intervening years because they either didn't survive the retreat as Falls suggests or haven't been found yet. --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bridge

[edit]

An editor has decided Jisr means bridge and cut all references to bridge in the article. These have been reinstated because this is an english language article and no source has been given for the translation. Jisr could equally mean crossing or ford. This sort of global editing by one editor on the basis of unsourced knowledge keeps the 264th most active editor on Wikipedia up there. --Rskp (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has replaced foreign language words jisr to bridge and ed to the, with a reference. I am surprised this was reverted without even looking to see if the translation was correct, however this time left the English version in place, this being an English language article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is Jisr translated as bridge? --Rskp (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was where the reference, you deleted said it was.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV article moved without consultation

[edit]

This article has been renamed without any discussion from the name it is most widely known as "Jisr ed Damieh" because someone has found a translation of one of the three words in the name. This article describes Egyptian Expeditionary Force and Ottoman Army operations in the Middle East, and it is disrespectful and POV to anglicise names. It is also inconsistent as all other names respect the language of the place. --Rskp (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This as you pointed out is the English Wikipedia. Why use foreign language words then.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term POV gets thrown around too much in these articles. The issue is really what is the common name in English language sources - see WP:COMMONNAME. Being unfamiliar with the subject I don't know, so I don't really have an opinion either way (and because I'm on cse for the next few weeks I don't have my books to check). Think it best to actually understand the issue rather than just claiming POV all the time though. Anotherclown (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another way would be to explain to readers that Jisr ed Damieh means the Damieh bridge. Oh forgot already tried that and you deleted it. Also you have already Anglicised names otherwise you would have used Nehar haYarden instead of River Jordan, Ariha for Jericho, Yerushalayim for Jerusalem, Beit Lahm for Bethlehem and so on. How disrespectful of you. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No response? Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I have been busy undoing some disruptive edits. As I have already said, Jisr ed Damieh and the bridge there are best in the language of the country where this place is found, otherwise it would by POV. --Rskp (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth is adding Jirs ed Damieh (the Damieh bridge) point of view. Or changing text so JISR and BRIDGE are not repeated in the same sentence. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its the translation. --Rskp (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roslyn - can you pls respond to my question about the common name of the battle in English language sources? Like I said I don't know and don't have an opinion either way (its clearly not an issue of POV though). Anotherclown (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AC most sources use the Arabic, but I believe as most of the readers will not know what a Jisr is or that ed means the a simple explanation is required. I have added the translation several times and had it deleted and it was even deleted when the reference, which was asked for, was added. I can see no problem with adding the English translation but Roslyn for some reason thinks that is POV ! Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not in a posn to do a literature review I note the Official War History of the Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment 1914-1919 p. 224 calls it the Capture of Damieh Crossing [1]. Another source (although clearly less authoritative) refers to it as the capture of the Damieh pontoon bridge. Other than a reference to the place name I couldn't find the battle referred to (as a noun) in Gullett. Anotherclown (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In The Battle for Syria, 1918-1920 The Turks held on to the Damieh bridge... page 152. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

2012 RoslynSKP (retired), who created the entire article, has introduced from the very first version as source the

"New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade Headquarters War Diary". First World War Diaries AWM4, 35-12-41. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. September 1918.

This source was initially ref'ed once, and by now seven (!) times. However, when he created the "Citations" section (akin to "Bibliography") in 2012, he typed 35-1-41, so 35-1-... instead of 35-12-.... Which one to believe? The first one might be correct (copying mistake when creating "Citations"), but what if he checked more thoroughly the second time around?

The link is dead, I cannot verify myself. Does anyone have the time to deal with this? I had to adopt the ref on the Jisr ed-Damiye (Damiyeh Bridge) page too: if clarified here, the mistake must be sorted out there too. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capture_of_Jisr_ed_Damieh&oldid=1200628578"