Talk:Capture of Damascus (1918)/Archive 1

French contingent
The French colonial Spahi Régiment Mixte de Marche de Cavalerie (also known as the 16th Regiment Mixte de Marche de Palestine et Syrie and the 1er Régiment Mixte de Cavalerie du Lavant) was composed of two squadrons of French Chasseurs d’Afrique and one squadron of Spahis

Minor quibble but according to a French source the Régiment Mixte de Marche de Cavalerie was neither a spahi regiment nor a colonial one. It was an ad hoc unit created for what the French termed the campagne de Palestine from squadrons of spahis and chasseurs d' Afrique. Both of these two branches of cavalry came from the 19th Army Corps which, while normally stationed in French North Africa, formed part of the metropolitan army. The French colonial troops were a separate corps intended for service in sub-Saharan Africa and Indo-China. The French also employed three battalions of Algerian tirailleurs and territorial infantry as well as three batteries of artillery and locally recruited Syrian and Armenian levies for this campaign, though none appear to have been involved in the capture of Damascus. Just being pedantic. Buistr (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Having seen the wiki connection to the Saphi I assumed that that was what they were. --Rskp (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Populations living on the battlefields
The Populations living on the battlefields section have no bearing on the fighting or conduct of this battle and is just padding. Can you supply a good reason why this section should not be deleted.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The information Jim Sweeney cut from the background is included here so that readers can make up their own minds. --Rskp (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The inhabitants of the region varied greatly in their background, religious beliefs and political outlook. In the Eastern Hauran, the bulk of the population were Druses, while in the Jaulan, more Circassians, Metawala and some Algerian colonists were living. The southern Jaulan district was poor and rocky, supporting a very small population and groups of nomads from the Wuld Ali in the eastern desert, while the north is more fertile with a large Circassian colony in and around Kuneitra. The north–west Jaulan district contains some Metawala villages and some Algerian colonies in the east, introduced by the Emir Abdul Qadir after he had taken refuge in Damascus in the 1850s. In between these are settled Arabs similar to those in the Nukra plain; while in the east are Bedouin Arabs. [British Army Handbook 9/4/18 pp. 61, 67]


 * In order for an article to be awarded GA it must be "broad in its coverage." This information regarding the population living on the battlefield, is necessary to fulfill the criteria of broad coverage. --Rskp (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The criteria is It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): The population of the battlefield is off focus, they had no bearing on the battle neither helping or hindering either side. Using your same rational why is there not a section of flora and fauna.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Battle of Nablus was awarded GA status with a description of the populations living on that battlefield included in the article. So I see no reason to cut this information which some general readers may find interesting, if the narrowly military minded do not. --Rskp (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As this discussion is over several articles consolidated at Talk:Battle of Sharon (1918) can all further comments be added there.Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion, if it is to continue should be on the Nablus talk page. --Rskp (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This can be worked out through discussion. I've protected this page and two others that are under dispute right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit War
An edit war has been declared even though the reinstated information has been a negotiating strategy. It is important that this article not be censored, by Jim Sweeney cutting information which is relevant, contemporary and well cited. This is not unnecessary information about the battle but the last subsection of the Background section of the article. This is the right place for the identification of the people living on the battlefield at the time of the battle. This article describes another example of the great empires fighting over other people's country and although it is not known whether these people were involved in the fighting, their identity should be available to readers. --Rskp (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest centralising this discussion and perhaps inviting other interested persons (members of MilHist, perhaps). As for an edit war, you don't declare it. Your actions indicate it is happening (reverting numerous times over several days, for example). It's not a formal war. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Change of name of unit without source
Jim Sweeney changed the name of unit without citation here --Rskp (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Jim (if I can be informal) seems to have changed it to what that unit was known as at the time - the 38th King George V's Own Central India Horse not becoming the "Central India Horse (21st King George V's Own Horse)" until the 1920s. That said it could have been done as a piped link rather than replacing a link with a redirect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article Central India Horse (21st King George V's Own Horse) with a redirect from the 38th King George's Own Central India Horse claims the name change occurred in the early 1900s, but its not cited. I've re-established the information in the link. Thanks for your advice and interest. --Rskp (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Order of Battle of the British Army 1914 gives it as the "38th King George's Own Central Horse" as does Doctrine and Reform in the British Cavalry 1880-1918  but neither give a date for a change to 21st. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Publishers comment for a reprint of a 1930 history of the unit gives 1921 for the merger of the 38th and 39th[ http://www.naval-military-press.com/king-george-s-own-central-india-horse.html]. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good find however RoslynSKP already knew the units correct name from another article I copied the note across This is the 38th King George's Own Central India Horse not to be confused with the 39th King George's Own Central India Horse which had remained in India [Preston 1921, p.335, Falls 1930 Vol. 2, p. 667] If a source for a name is really needed (is it likely to be challenged) the London Gazette publication of Allenbys despatches gives full details on page one Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Jim Sweeney you are probably not aware, but I have been involved in writing a large number of articles, so great a number in fact that I don't remember as much as you think I do, though I'm flattered to think you think I "know it all"!! Maybe if you thought of what I do as reflecting the sources I quote, you might see where I'm coming from. :D --Rskp (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry GraemeLeggett, I wasn't disagreeing with you, merely pointing out the weakness of the Wikipedia article. --Rskp (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

section on Damascus
I trimmed (excised?) the quote from Gullet at the start of the section on Damascus because while it waxed lyrical on the beauty of the area it didn't actually add much in terms of understanding the geographic/ military situation. If it had been a quote from page 752, where Gullett talked about the freedom of manoeuvre that armies had or the east-west and north-south roads from Damascus it might have had some utility. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Rskp (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations
This page uses a lot of large block quotes. Isn't this a copyright violation? According to your own policy I found here it says: "copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed ( unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation." These quotes make up more than half the text! 84.22.32.222 (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If the quotations are taken from a text that is out of copyright, there is no issue there. The essay Quotations goes into the subject in more depth. The complaint seems to centre on a piece by Chauvel attributed in the text as "copy of Record dated 22 October 1929 written by Lt. Gen. Sir H.G. Chauvel regarding the meeting between Sir Edmund Allenby and the Emir Feisal at the Hotel Victoria, Damascus, 3 October 1918 in Hughes 2004 [pages]297–300". Chauvel died in 1945. If he had already published the record in a book of his own then in Australia (life +50) copyright expired, if the UK (life + 70) in copyright. However, the record might have been published by either government as part of its archivesin which case copyright might have expired. Or if unpublished in the case of UK might be protected until 2040. Lastly it might never have been part of the official record but a private note in a diary which was then made available to biographers or other researchers by his estate and published as part of a more recent book in which case copyright is likely to be in force. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what the problem is here. There is no unpublished material mentioned in this article. All the information is clearly cited with references which are fully described in the bibliography. The quote GraemeLeggett refers to was published by Hughes, Matthew, ed. in 2004 in his Allenby in Palestine: The Middle East Correspondence of Field Marshal Viscount Allenby June 1917 – October 1919 No. 22 of the Army Records Society series by Phoenix Mill, Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7509-3841-9. --Rskp (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the addition of a copyvio tag here is probably not quite the right approach and would not want to see the article deleted, although I agree there are some significant issues that require fairly urgent rectification. From my reading of IP 84's post this issue is both a question of the number and length of the quotes, not so much their source (although this also needs to be considered and Graeme's helpful explanation above should provide you with some guidance here). The original article (before it was hidden by the copyvio tag) did indeed include approx. 20 block quotes which made up some 3,600 odd words by my calculation (out of an article of approx. 16,600 word hence nearly 21% of the article). This is definitely excessive, and per WP:QUOTATIONS would probably constitute "overuse". The danger here is that such a large reliance on possibly copyrighted material may be a breech of the policy IRT non-free content per WP:NFCCP. This could probably be fixed fairly simply by paraphrasing the quotes using your own words. Anotherclown (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As the IP editor did not finish the process of listing the tag on the Copyright noticeboard I have asked there for clarification as to what should be done.
 * It's difficult to directly address an answer to an IP editor so my above has to be seen as more an open letter to cover more aspects than a particular comment on the quote which I believe they were focused on. As I understand it, the publication is a (selected) collection of letters and reports that Allenby sent during his time in Palestine. While the material may well be out of copyright as is, possibly - since it was selected and edited - the Army Records Society may have some claim to copyright, a point best clarified with them. Overquoting can either be a copyright issue (lots of individual quotes from an author's novel for instance), a sourcing issue (over reliance on a single/primary source for a statement) or an aesthetic issue (large numbers of quotes interfering with the flow of the article), or combinations of the above. Once the (I suspect) straight-forward copyvio issue is sorted, perhaps a Good Article review would bring out some other editors thoughts.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, as the editor who was probably responsible for the quotes which are being discussed here, 20% does seem high. Its been a while since I looked at this article so apart from Chauvel's report, I can't remember the other sources. From past experience my B-class articles do need a lot of work before being submitted for GAR, and I would be happy to include paraphrases, if they are thought more desirable. --Rskp (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As no further posts for over a week, I suspect 84.22.32.222's contribution may be vandalism and will revert if I can. --Rskp (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you'll need some sort of third party involvement. perhaps a direct appeal to someone handling the copyvio cases. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has been done to fix the problem yet the tag gets removed over and again by the person that is probably responsible for the plagiarism in the first place. Something is rotten on Wikipedia I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.220.193.166 (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This appears more and more like straight out vandalism, as the tag has been reapplied without any explanation, or contribution to this discussion. I have cut it again, because we don't even know what the problems are that have led to the tag being applied. The tag was up for over a week without any input from the editor who put up the tag and the process has not been started; the steps have not been taken. The editor who put up the tag must knows something of Wikipedia practices, more than the average editor learns in the normal course of editing, or is it someone who just happened along? --Rskp (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the first entry its all explained there.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A very active user placed the tag at the top of the page here at 07:17 on 9 October. That was almost 24 hours ago. Still there has been no attempt to initiate the process. It seems there is one particular section of the article which Jim Sweeney and 84.22.32.222 object to. The tag could have been placed there. During the week that no action was taken by 84.22.32.222 to start the process the 95 anniversary of this capture was celebrated, without a Wikipedia article. As no process has been set in motion again, after the tag was reinstated, the tag was cut citing vandalism. --Rskp (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To accuse someone of vandalism for adding a tag to an article is very poor form. Especially when you have done nothing to address the remarks and lets face it you do have a history of plagiarism, which has been pointed out to you before Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Roslyn - its not just Jim and the IP that have these concerns, I also think the use of quoted material here is excessive (and I said so above). I note you said previously that you would be prepared to paraphrase the quotes so I think that is probably the solution here, rather than continuing to revert the tag and ignoring these cmts. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why has the process associated with the tag been ignored? The continued replacement of this tag, which deletes the article, without initiating the associated process, is vandalism. How can the article be worked on with this tag in place? --Rskp (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't answer why my request for guidance hasn't been answered but perhaps the answer is to follow up the problem yourself at the Copyvio noticeboard rather than just ending up in an edit war with an IP or other contributers. And "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism" to quote policy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While I was happy to accept the first tag as a good faith edit from an IP, when there was no attempt to set in train the process, and the article was not available for its 95th anniversary, I became skeptical and cut the tag. Now with an editor who has been among the 200 most active Wikipedians replacing the tag, without starting the process, I began to think that such a well informed editor must have made a mistake. Now, I don't know. I am in the process of educating myself about quotations so that I can better deal with the problem, if there is one. Quotations states: "Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit." But with the tag in place, how can this work begin? --Rskp (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tag reinstated which is not vandalism, instead of procrastinating, why don't you try and address the hi-lighted problem.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) As an admin who regularly works copyrights, I was asked to give feedback here. User:GraemeLeggett precisely points out the problem with this content above. A publication in 2004 is not helpful, even if the letter was written and privately communicated to its recipient decades ago This chart from Cornell gives a basic overview of the situation. Since we are forbidden by policy to take chances in this area, it seems like unless we can verify early enough publication for the content to be public domain the best approach here has already been proposed by Rskp - proper paraphrase and judicious smaller quotes can address the problem. I myself think it would be fine to remove the tag under the circumstances and do that right in the article if it can be done in one go. If more time is needed, or if others prefer the formal route, it can be done in a subpage as described on the template itself. If you go that route, please let me know when it's ready, and I'll go ahead and get it into publication pronto. No reason to have this sit around in limbo longer than necessary. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Moonriddengirl. Thanks for the cmts - more than happy for this to happen and agree that this is probably the best way to handle it. I don't think we really need to go to a sub page and have no issues with the article being edited directly (although I'm not in a posn to do this myself I'd support other editors doing this - including Roslyn). Anotherclown (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At the moment I am working on another article's GAR. The reviewer has pointed out problems with the quotations which, with their guidance, I am working through. As soon as I can I will address the quotation problems here. But as I say, how can this be done while the tag continues to make the article unavailable.

I am really surprised no Wikipedia editor thinks it is vandalism to make an article unavailable for so long on the say so of an IP who claims there are "large block quotes" when there are none. Their claim that the copyright holder's permission is required, is rubbish. There is no original material quoted anywhere in this article. The quotations do not make up any where near half the article. Not only is there no original material anywhere in the article, all information is properly cited. Why is it all of a sudden a problem now during the 95th anniversary of the operations? This article has been B class since 5 October 2012 and edited by Jim Sweeney many times, since then without any mention of problems with the quotations. --Rskp (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "...an IP who claims there are "large block quotes" when there are none". Are you reading the same article? There are at least 20 block quotes by my count. Anyway no one said the quotes make up half - I said they make up 21% of the text (more than 3,600 words out of 16,600 word article), which at any rate is still clearly too much to be justified under fair use. Show me another serious encyclopedia that would do this. It really shouldn't be hard to rewrite them using your own words. BTW the source of the article can still be edited by clicking on the "edit this page" tab at the top of the article. Once you have completed the task of rewording the possibly copyrighted text the tag can then be removed. Several editors have now explained the issue to you, so unless you are prepared to try and fix it the only solution I can see is to delete the block quotes so that the tag can at least be removed. I don't think this is an ideal solution though, as the article would then be quite disjointed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no "block" quotes in this article. There is no original material anywhere in the article, so the IP's call for copyright holders' permission is rubbish. All the information is properly cited. WHAT IS THE RUSH? Why is it all of a sudden a problem now during the 95th anniversary of the operations? This article has been B class since 5 October 2012 and edited by Jim Sweeney many times, since then without any mention of problems with the quotations. So, WHY NOW? In any case, until the tag is cut the work can't commence. IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED the article is BLOCKED. If THAT'S not VANDALISM, then what is? --Rskp (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pls have a look at MOS:Blockquote for an explanation of what one is. Like I said the source of the article is still easily accessible and can be edited. Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are absolutely right Anotherclown. I am sorry, I confused box quotes with block quotes. Sincere apologies. --Rskp (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see just how many or few times I have edited this article has to do with the above. Most of thoses edits have been the same point time after time. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I can see some effort is going in to addressing the concerns, which is encouraging, I think you may still be misunderstanding the issue. The problem is the over reliance on quoted text, not the use the block quote format / template. Most of the changes that have been made seem to just be removing the template, or moving the quote into a paragraph - whilst the level of quote text remains about the same. Anotherclown (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your continuing interest. In order to do the sort of job you require, the article needs a thorough read through and copyedit, which I will do as soon as I get a chance, before submitting it for a Guild copyedit. --Rskp (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a quick experiment, I sought out how many quote marks were in the article - Internet explorer was a bit reticent giving the answer as over 100, so I refined my choice to ". for ends of sentences - and got 60 instances. By comparison - and possibly bad choices - the Somme and Passchendaele articles (bearing in mind they are about half the size) had about a dozen or so each. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your continuing interest. There are quite detailed descriptions of the Somme and Passchendaele available, from almost every angle you can think of, including biased and comprehensive. This affects the Wikipedia article. Damascus is slightly different, its much smaller, has much less written about it, and as a consequence, much less is known about it. The Sinai and Palestine campaign just can't be compared with the scale of the western front, nor the writings about them. If I were to cut the article back to a scale which could be compared to the Somme or Passchendaele, its probable that it would only be one sentence long, or even less. --Rskp (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is saying to do that. What is being said is to rewrite the article using your own words, not using quotes. Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * GraemeLeggett raised the issue of comparison with the western front. All these published and correctly cited quotes are either from a first hand eye witness as in the case of the machine gunners or directly relevant descriptions of a politically very complex time, written by the generals in charge. As such I think they require some serious consideration. --Rskp (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Enemy
The IP 114.206.162.62 has changed 'enemy' into 'Ottoman,' writing out the German forces, which were involved in these operations. --Rskp (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no need to document this on the talk page, a simple edit Ottoman and German with an edit summery was all that was required.Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)