Talk:Stalemate in Southern Palestine: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:04, 3 June 2013 editRoslynSKP (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, File movers24,704 edits →Infobox: response← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:19, 3 June 2013 edit undoRoslynSKP (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, File movers24,704 edits →Notability: responseNext edit →
Line 15:		Line 15:
	::::22.92.241.180 is attacking this article, cutting the infobox, and a lot of information integral to the notability of the operations, before notability has been discussed. --] (]) 08:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)		::::22.92.241.180 is attacking this article, cutting the infobox, and a lot of information integral to the notability of the operations, before notability has been discussed. --] (]) 08:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::: It does seem that there have been some "interesting", although in my opinion constructive, IP edits to this article over the past week. While I agree that there is nothing wrong with an IP editing this or any other article proposals such as this made by anonymous users usually don't go anywhere because they get proposed in a drive by manner and then the proposer doesn't continue to participate in the discussion. As such I have contacted IP 202 on his / her talkpage to encourage them to login (see ]). To respond to the issues raised so far I agree that this article is excessively long and at the very least requires a concerted effort to reduce it. On the main I am of the opinion that the topic ''is'' suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages (it does cover a 6 month period during a major military campaign); however, how this is done is open to discussion and I am not altogether convinced that it meets the notability guideline under ] for a stand alone article. If ultimately the decision is made to keep as a discreet article though I would like to see it become more focused. At the moment it seems to be a collection of a large amount of unimportant trivia and quotes and quite honestly is ''boring'' to read. The vast majority of the information in these quotes could easily be conveyed in fewer words if the quotes were re-written as prose. As it stands it seems to be written rather lazily using excessive quotes like a lot of the popular histories about this campaign that are increasingly available, rather than using a more academic and economical writing style that would probably be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Hopefully the established editor currently working on this article will show good faith and allow these IP edits to be considered and discussed rather than blindly reverted, although from recent activity and that user's previous history of ] this doesn't seem likely. ] (]) 08:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)		::::: It does seem that there have been some "interesting", although in my opinion constructive, IP edits to this article over the past week. While I agree that there is nothing wrong with an IP editing this or any other article proposals such as this made by anonymous users usually don't go anywhere because they get proposed in a drive by manner and then the proposer doesn't continue to participate in the discussion. As such I have contacted IP 202 on his / her talkpage to encourage them to login (see ]). To respond to the issues raised so far I agree that this article is excessively long and at the very least requires a concerted effort to reduce it. On the main I am of the opinion that the topic ''is'' suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages (it does cover a 6 month period during a major military campaign); however, how this is done is open to discussion and I am not altogether convinced that it meets the notability guideline under ] for a stand alone article. If ultimately the decision is made to keep as a discreet article though I would like to see it become more focused. At the moment it seems to be a collection of a large amount of unimportant trivia and quotes and quite honestly is ''boring'' to read. The vast majority of the information in these quotes could easily be conveyed in fewer words if the quotes were re-written as prose. As it stands it seems to be written rather lazily using excessive quotes like a lot of the popular histories about this campaign that are increasingly available, rather than using a more academic and economical writing style that would probably be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Hopefully the established editor currently working on this article will show good faith and allow these IP edits to be considered and discussed rather than blindly reverted, although from recent activity and that user's previous history of ] this doesn't seem likely. ] (]) 08:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
			:I'm sorry Anotherclown thinks I would "blindly revert" another editor's work. Why he would think my edits are not made in good faith, I can't imagine. I'm grateful for Anotherclown's feedback regarding the article and agree its unwieldy. Yes, I did lump together a whole lot of information because during this period so much happened, not the least of which was the trench warfare, combat patrolling, the reorganisations of the opposing forces and the arrival of the new commanders, while the EEF managed to hold their position in the face of strong opposition and terrible conditions. I look forward to the short comings of this article being discussed, rather than the article being attacked, and hacked to pieces. --] (]) 01:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

	== Infobox ==		== Infobox ==

Revision as of 01:19, 3 June 2013

Military history: South Pacific / British / European / German / Ottoman / World War I B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Ottoman military history task force
	World War I task force

Notability

The notability of this article has been questioned by adding this tag without discussion. If there are concerns about the notability of this article, please discuss them here. --Rskp (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about topics which occurred after one battle and before another (weather conditions, medical problems, dust, rest camps, patrolling, reorganization, cricket and boxing matches). Nothing of note appears to have occurred during this period. Essentially not notable on their own and should be included in the campaign article in far less detail. Too much padding and pointless quotes to try and make it look like it is notable. I can see a lot of work has been done on this article but unfortunately it is about nothing in particular. Is Stalemate in Southern Palestine even an appropriate name? Who calls it this or is this made up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.29.241.180 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously this anonymous editor is an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, why doesn't s/he identify themselves? You need to read the whole article before making sweeping judgements. Stalemate has been referred to in the literature. --Rskp (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to create an account, or for the IP editor to identify him/her self, to edit Misplaced Pages. I agree why is this article notable, its not a battle or any other notable event. The arrival of Allenby and the changes he brought about could form a stand alone article but could also be included in the campaign article. I have hesitated to comment before this because of your well documented ownership of article problems. Misplaced Pages:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney, the Stalemate is referred to in the literature and the occupation of the northern edge of the Negev Desert from April to October 1917, is notable as a site outside Europe of western front style trench warfare during WW1, along with aerial combat, raids, combat and reconnaissance patrolling. The conditions the soldiers endured during the summer of 1917, on the edge of the Negev Desert, also make this period of fighting notable. --Rskp (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

22.92.241.180 is attacking this article, cutting the infobox, and a lot of information integral to the notability of the operations, before notability has been discussed. --Rskp (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It does seem that there have been some "interesting", although in my opinion constructive, IP edits to this article over the past week. While I agree that there is nothing wrong with an IP editing this or any other article proposals such as this made by anonymous users usually don't go anywhere because they get proposed in a drive by manner and then the proposer doesn't continue to participate in the discussion. As such I have contacted IP 202 on his / her talkpage to encourage them to login (see here). To respond to the issues raised so far I agree that this article is excessively long and at the very least requires a concerted effort to reduce it. On the main I am of the opinion that the topic is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages (it does cover a 6 month period during a major military campaign); however, how this is done is open to discussion and I am not altogether convinced that it meets the notability guideline under WP:GNG for a stand alone article. If ultimately the decision is made to keep as a discreet article though I would like to see it become more focused. At the moment it seems to be a collection of a large amount of unimportant trivia and quotes and quite honestly is boring to read. The vast majority of the information in these quotes could easily be conveyed in fewer words if the quotes were re-written as prose. As it stands it seems to be written rather lazily using excessive quotes like a lot of the popular histories about this campaign that are increasingly available, rather than using a more academic and economical writing style that would probably be more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Hopefully the established editor currently working on this article will show good faith and allow these IP edits to be considered and discussed rather than blindly reverted, although from recent activity and that user's previous history of article ownership this doesn't seem likely. Anotherclown (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Anotherclown thinks I would "blindly revert" another editor's work. Why he would think my edits are not made in good faith, I can't imagine. I'm grateful for Anotherclown's feedback regarding the article and agree its unwieldy. Yes, I did lump together a whole lot of information because during this period so much happened, not the least of which was the trench warfare, combat patrolling, the reorganisations of the opposing forces and the arrival of the new commanders, while the EEF managed to hold their position in the face of strong opposition and terrible conditions. I look forward to the short comings of this article being discussed, rather than the article being attacked, and hacked to pieces. --Rskp (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Rskp. I note from this edit that you have already started reverting and have re-added the infobox that was removed by Jim. Because you offered no explanation for this I have reverted. Discussion of the issue will hopefully allow some form of consensus to develop as opposed to an edit war. Interestingly the infobox you restored was also your original one, rather than that with the edits made by IP 202 in which you somewhat excessively describe the location as "...Southern Palestine from the Mediterranean coast west of Gaza to the east of Beersheba with front line more or less following the Gaza to Beersheba road...." and describe the result as a "...stalemate...". Obviously there are a few issues at stake here.

Firstly is an infobox appropriate, and if it is, what should it contain? At the moment the requirement for an infobox is probably contingent on whether this is actually considered an "event" or just a period b/n two events (and this comes to the heart of whether it is notable and requires a standalone article). I haven't formed an opinion about this yet and would be interested in seeing a discussion from both Jim and yourself about this.
Secondly. If an infobox is retained I for one agree with IP 202's summary of the result as opposed to yours. They wrote: "...EEF offensive resumes following the Battle of Beersheba..." which makes more sense to me than "stalemate". Really how can the result of the "Stalemate of Southern Palestine" be a "stalemate" as you seem to be suggesting. Ultimately the stalemate ended and this was the result. I also agree with their summary of the location as "...Southern Palestine from the Mediterranean coast west of Gaza to the east of Beersheba..." which is more succinct that yours.

Is there any chance you will actually discuss this or are you just going to continue to revert? Anotherclown (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The attacks on Stalemate in Southern Palestine, before and during the raising of the question of notability, are changing the article before a decision has been reached. I reinstated the infobox, which is an overview of the article, to aid readers participation in that discussion. Anotherclown's accusation, that this one reinstatement was part of a campaign by me to revert changes made to the article, is wrong. --Rskp (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Categories: