British Empire NA‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles NA This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Turkey Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Palestine Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Can this campaignbox be edited to include the 2nd Transjordan to Es Salt. Would it be possible to refer to the 1st Amman as the 1st Transjordan? Maybe it could read 1st and 2nd Transjordans ? --Rskp (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't describe the attack on 'Haifa' as a separate action, but an integral part of the Battle of Megiddo. You will also find 'Jaffa' was part of the battles of Mughar Ridge and Jerusalem. Can anyone provide any information about Berukin? --Rskp (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berukin took place between the 9-10 April. ####

Jim Sweeney is expanding this template, adding every place mentioned in the campaign as if it was a battle. Yesterday he added a red link to, what he calls the Battle of Junction Station to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign template, although its part of the Battle of Mughar Ridge fighting and described in that article. The British Army Council's report describes it as a subsequent occupation as a result of the Mughar Ridge battle and should be more properly linked to that battle. Jim Sweeney has also added a red link to the Battle of Nebi Samwil to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign template when it should be linked to the Battle of Jerusalem as it was part of that battle and is described in that article. Further the red link to Haifa and Arara form part of the Battle of Megiddo (1918) and Berukin and Arara in April 1918 like Arsuf in June 1918 were small attacks along the front line described in a few paragraphs in the main Sinai and Palestine Campaign article. What do other editors think of this proliferation? --Rskp (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are all recognised battles. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recognised by whom? What is your source? --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following application was made to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736 Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine

Hi there is a problem with an editor, who keeps adding a redirect in the Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine . Its from the Battle of Jaffa (1917) to direct to the Battle of Jerusalem (1917). The editor User:RoslynSKP is well aware of the Jaffa article and has edited it. This daily change has become disruptive. The revision history for the template is here [186] Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC) To begin, Jim Sweeney started this problem by adding the Battle of Jaffa to this template, as a red link. As this battle is described in the Battle of Jerusalem article, I changed the link to the Jerusalem battle, so that it functioned. Then he reverted it several times back to a red link. Jim Sweeney then created the Battle of Jaffa article, by copying material from the Battle of Jerusalem article, which I think is against Wikipedia policy. This new article fails to place this subsidiary battle, within the broader context of the Battle of Jerusalem, treating it as an isolated battle. As there was fighting at this time, all along the front line from the Mediterranean coast to Jerusalem, it was not isolated as the Battle of Jerusalem (1918) article makes clear. Further, until I edited Jim Sweeney's Battle of Jaffa article, it did not even have a link to its parent article, leave alone any acknowledgement that the vast majority of the information in the article, was copied from the GA Battle of Jerusalem article. Because of these and other serious defects of this second generation article, I have suggested to Jim Sweeney on the article's talk page that the Battle of Jaffa article be deleted. I have been reverting the link on the template back to the Battle of Jerusalem (1918) because of the dubious quality of the Battle of Jaffa article and the likelihood that it will be deleted. --Rskp (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC) This discussion has been archived at [1]--Rskp (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replace the wikilinks that were deleted, do not remove valid links from this template. You have been advised about WP:OWN on articles in the past. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its you who has the problem with WP:OWN. You need to get past the idea that any fighting which lasted a few hours is a battle. Its absurd to list all these engagements. They do not need separate listings on this template as they are already covered by the battles they formed part of, or were over in less than half a day. Or do you want this template to look like the Sinai and Palestine Campaign was more extensive than the western front? --Rskp (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been a lot of reverts to this template over the last few weeks, I have protected it for a week to allow for dispute resolution. As I've suggested previously, I think that the best way forward with this dispute would be through a formal - and wide ranging - request for comment process or the dispute resolution noticeboard. The same set of issues keep coming up in different articles, and it's getting really unproductive. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Its extraordinary the lengths Jim Sweeney will go to, to expand this template into - well I don't know where he thinks he can go with it. But this dispute has already been ignored by the administrators. Its very difficult to get a wide range of informed editors, who know about this campaign and who also have the time to waste in once more following, the crazy paths of Jim Sweeney. See disputes re Anzac Mounted Division on Mil Hist where two consensus here [2] and here [3] were not enough for him. --Rskp (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how personal abuse is helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm sorry, I don't see where there is personal abuse, I was referring to an editors work, not to him personally. --Rskp (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has also nothing to do with the contents of this template. To be clear the articles you have deleted are, several red links that have not yet been created and;

• Battle of Katia - presently rated a Good Article, that you worked on, but lost interest in when consensus, was for a non POV name change.
• Battle of El Buggar Ridge - a start class article
• Battle of Jaffa (1917) - a start class article
• Battle of Abu Tellul - a start class article
• Battle of Arara - a start class article

The edit summery was delete engagements which lasted less than half a day and those which are already covered in the listed battles. How long the battle lasted has nothing to do with why they should be included in a campaign box template. El Buggar Ridge was three days before the battle of Beersheba. It also only lasted one day, and has a link to the main article, battle of El Buggar. The Jaffa battle is part of the aftermath section of Battle of Jerusalem. It was also recognised by British Empire forces as a separate battle by the award of the Battle Honour Jaffa. Abu Tellul also known to the British as the Affair of Abu Tellul, was a German/Ottomanh attack [4] that as far as I can see is not part of any other article. Arara was a French/Ottoman battle that is not included in any other article. Added to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#What should be in Campaign Box templates for discussion.

All these battles should be included in this template. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All this has been discussed elsewhere. But let me repeat the Jaffa battle is officially recognised by the Battles Nomenclature Committee as being a subsidiary battle of the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) where it has been fully described. Jim Sweeney created the Battle of Jaffa article by copying the vast majority of this stub article from the Battle of Jerusalem article even though editors are specifically requested, during the process of creating a new article, not to include material covered elsewhere. His assertion that the Battle of Jaffa is outside the focus of the Battle of Jerusalem cannot be sustained because firstly its officially a subsidiary battle and secondly during the GA process the focus of this GA article was tested and found to be correct.

Arara is an incident during the Battle of Sharon and will be covered there.

The Katia article was awarded GA while it was called 'Affair of Katia'. Afterwards it was renamed, contrary to all the literature, and solely on the basis of a consensus of the MilHist discussion page. Renaming Katia a battle is misleading readers. Similarly the Abu Tellul article name is now misleading; the literature simply does not support the new name. This article is certainly not a start class article as considerable research has been added. Once again the official name was changed by force of editors and no longer describes the action according to the literature.

Katia, Buggar and Abu Tellul were all over in less than half a day, were fought by units amounting to less than a brigade of cavalry in the case of Katia and Buggar and light horse in the case of Abu Tellul against Ottoman attackers whose strengths have yet to be confirmed. Katia and Abu Tellul are both officially known as an 'Affair', while Buggar is not officially named, although it is described in the official history as being fought between two troops and a squadron of cavalry and an Ottoman force during preparations for the attack on Beersheba. [Battles Nomenclature Committee The Official Names of the Battles and other engagements fought by the Military Forces of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914-19, and the Third Afghan War, 1919 report approved by the Army Council (1922 London, HM Stationary Office) pp. 31–33] [C. Falls Official History of the Great War Military Operations Egypt & Palestine Vol. 2 Part I (1930 London Hm Stationary Office) p. 39]

Including all these small scale operations inflates this template to the point where a general reader is going to have difficulty appreciating the scale of the campaign as its described in the literature. --Rskp (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its a navigation template that should list all the battles and engagements in a campaign, not only the one you deem suitable by size, quality or that have a present Wikipedia article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jim Sweeney, readers use it to navigate the campaign, but listing every battle and engagement will not give them a clear view of the campaign and help them negotiate their way through.

Stub articles like the one Jim Sweeney created by copying from the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article to create all of the the Battle of Jaffa (1917) article except for three web site quotes should be deleted. --Rskp (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus reached for inclusion of deleted articles including red links Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#What should be in Campaign Box templates. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reinstatement of the chronological and georgraphic sequence of the battles fought for the Gaza to Beersheba line has been undone, the last time accompanied by this comment; "(i wrote huj its part of 3rd gaza as is hareira which redirects to the 3rd gaza battle - stop trying to re-write history - beersheba as every historian agrees was the start of the 3rd gaza battle)." In fact the battle for Khuweifle began before the fighting for Gaza began. There appears to be a misunderstanding of these battles. Beersheba was fought 30 miles or more from Gaza by two corps which were not in any way involved in the inconclusive fighting for Gaza which occurred more than 24 hours later. The fighting for Khuweifle begun on 1 November continued until 7 November, while the fighting for Hareira and Sheria occurred on 6 and 7 November. Together the pressure from these battles finally forced the Ottoman withdrawal from Gaza without any further fighting occurring for Gaza. Fighting did continue until 8 November for rearguards holding sections of the old Gaza to Beersheba line. Allenby's Force Order No. 54, XX Corps Instruction, XX Corps Order No. 12, Desert Mounted Corps Operation Order No. 2, and XXI Corps Order No. 11, clearly show the movements of the EEF corps at this time were not about the capture of Gaza, although it was assumed that it would be captured as a consequence of the fighting, but about positioning the corps for the pursuit and the capture of Jerusalem. So grouping these battles under the inconclusive Third Gaza which was fought on the night of 1/2 November really does not reflect the positions of the three corps and their battles from 31 October to 7 November. Hopefully this explanation will encourage the editor to change the campaignbox back to more accurately reflect the campaign. --Rskp (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]