Talk:British occupation of the Jordan Valley

Original Research

This article uses several unpublished war diaries, and using them for references is original research.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

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.

“ Jim, could you ID which ones haven't been published? The description in the wiki guidance defines publication as being "made available to the public in some form", and the current biblio all look available in either hard or soft copy. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As I read it they have just been made available on the web as original documents. The first part of that description is - Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The obvious problem is war diaries are written by persons involved in the events and could well believe what they have written is true, but have not had time for fact checking or accuracy and could even be trying to hide something to avoid embarrassment. General Smith could write we held out for some time against a much larger force. While General von Schmidt on the other side writes, we were surprised at how quickly they gave in when opposed by a force of equal size. Both believe what they have said is true, that's why it need historians to go through both sides and piece the jigsaw together. Long post but hope that explains my reasoning. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that they're primary sources, but they are published primary sources, and there's no outright prohibition on them. I think that the OR requirement we need to judge them against is that "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". I'm not a great fan of this part of our policy, I'll admit, but in terms of making an OR claim, we'll need to point to where there is such interpretation, analysis or synthetic claim, rather than just noting that its a primary source. Many of them are also cited alongside secondary sources in this article to support particular points - I think rather than a general tag, it might be useful to ID which points of use are of particular concern. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes those alongside other sources, can presumably be removed as the secondary source covers the points. But some paragraphs use only the war diary for referencing. I thought it better to discuss first rather that several [original research?] tags.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree, always better to discuss. The policies don't seem to prohibit just using a published primary source to support a point though - the guidance is listed here. Could you give an example of where you think a primary source is being used in the article against that guidance? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

it says Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. There are one or two paragraphs based only on primary sources, while the material there may not be controversial and possibly can be removed from the article without any damage, they should be backed up with a secondary source if possible. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact looking again it seems all the material, with only a primary source reference can be deleted without causing any damage and that may be the best way to solve this? Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How about highlighting which ones you propose removing here, and then if there's consensus, removing them in a day or so? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok what about removing those supported by other refs and then highlighting which others can be removed without damaging the article then seeing what's left? Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me, although I'd note my role in this article has been limited to reviewing. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok the text for note six could be removed without any great damage, Ref 81b and Ref 97. The rest are used as the only source for large blocks of text and should be easily replaced by secondary sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not cut "large blocks of text" out of this article, which has been awarded GA status. There is no need to replace with secondary sources as the published war diary sources were assessed during the GA process as ok.--Rskp (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I see Jim Sweeney has gone ahead and placed original research tags in this article. Could he please remove these as its clear that there is no original research nor interpretation of those sources in this article - see GA review and comments by Hchc2009 above, if in doubt. --Rskp (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

”

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)

Do not delete other members post from talk pages. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you respect talk page guidelines and stop deleting other editors posts. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Over use of quotes

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • Fine for popular / pulp history, out of place in an encyclopedia. Bin it. Anotherclown (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

More padding

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)

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)

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)

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)

Change of article name without discussion

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)

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)

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)

They were also all under British command, so I would suggest the title is accurate.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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)