Talk:Battle of Jerusalem

Corrector

The Battle of Jerusalem took place during the First World War and resulted in the city of Jerusalem falling to British Empire forces in December 1917. On 11 December, Edmund Allenby entered the city on foot out of respect for the Holy City, becoming the first Christian to control the city in centuries.

Bold textWhat is this? is this an religous propaganda? Please neutral vision, without an political color................ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.71.16 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Silly protest. We go by the RS's. 74.37.206.38 (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Misnomer

Although this article is titled "Battle of Jerusalem", very little of its space (5 sentences) is devoted to the actual battle (tactics, developments, specific casualties, etc.). Far more space is devoted to what happened afterwards; even Allenby's entry into the city seems to be afforded more prominence. Can more about the battle itself be added? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Excessive off-topic material

Glad to see this article is being improved, but adding large amounts of copyrighted material lifted straight from books about tangential matters is problematic. Readers who get to this article want a description of the Battle of Jerusalem, not the whole history of the conquest of Palestine. This information can be linked. Also, there is no need for 4-5 references for every statement. One solid source is sufficient, or at most two.--Delishisoup (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The only copyright material straight from books is in side quotes. You have cut information regarding the precariousness of Allenby's position as he made the decision to move into the Judean Hills. Its necessary to describe the lines of communication because these add to understanding the precarious position. Perhaps there is excessive information but the 'under construction' template is on this article because at the moment I am putting up information which I think is relevant. This will need further editing but at this early stage its too soon to be cutting large sections. When 4 to 5 references have be used to write information, then its necessary to cite 4 to 5 references but there are occasional instances where authors have been cited to show the same information appearing in numerous sources. If this is a wrong practice then you will have to leave it to me to fix it. So far no one else has drawn my attention to it. I appreciate your interest but hope you can see your way to undoing your edits. --Rskp (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If I have inadvertently deleted an important piece of information, you are welcome to restore it, but please remember that Wikipedia articles do not "belong" to anybody. Placing a tag on the article doesn't mean that only you have the power to decide what should be in it. Please read WP:NOT for more information regarding Wikipedia norms. Adding 4-5 citations for every statement is clearly against WP policy, and your addition of lengthy quotations in side bars is also questionable. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, I do not feel that I must "leave it to you" to fix anything. Do not just dump material that needs to be pruned. Please read it thoroughly and get it into shape before adding. Even if articles here are always in a state of a flux, adding enormous amounts of unedited material is not helpful to those who are seeking information, which is the whole point of Wikipedia.--Delishisoup (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more - I was just trying to get this complicated conflict into a more easily understandable form, but its only half way there as the battle lasted another two weeks. So there is a lot more to do. I am very happy for you or anyone else to add to this work at this early stage of its development. I don't know what you mean by 'enormous amounts of unedited material'. Everything I have added except for the block quotes has been rewritten to incorporate information provided by the various sources cited. I can't see anything in WP:NOT which applies to this article or the numbers of citations, but in Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes it says 'Each article should aim to cover its topic beyond a simple definition.' This is my aim. :) --Rskp (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you are readding material, but again, let me emphasize that this is an encyclopedia. This style of writing may be fine for a battle memoir, with long winding sentences about how cold the soldiers were because their uniforms were made of cotton twill, and how slippery the rocks were, but it is not appropriate here. Way too much attention is being given to atmospheric details and whether someone turned right or left. The lead should begin with a sentence that sums up what this was - a World War I campaign in which the Brits fought the Turks and the Brits won, conquering Jerusalem without a shot. At the moment, those simple facts are missing.--Delishisoup (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree those long sentences are a problem which will be addressed as soon as I can. Its just a bit difficult to get it all together. But I do think the climate and terrain play an important part in this battle as they are so extreme. Similarly the tactics employed by each of the opposing forces; whether they turned right or left are included to help to orientate the reader and help them make sense of the maps. I've only incorporated one map at this stage but there are others to follow. I agree the lead still needs more work but would like to concentrate on getting all the information up, re-editing it as a whole to ensure its readibility, adding maps etc. and reworking the lead and aftermath sections. :)--Rskp (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Unit names

All the British unit names in this article are from the Second World War era and not suitable for a GA class article. Attempts to change them have been reverted by one user, can I direct you to WP:OWN. A such I believe it will never progress beyond a poor GA. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit summery what is your reference for describing the Norfolks as a regiment just shows your lack of military knowledge. The line in the text is The 5th Norfolks were driven out of Shilta there is not a 5th Norfolk Division or Brigade - its the 1/5th Battalion the Norfolk Regiment part of the 163rd (Norfolk and Suffolk) Brigade in the 54th (East Anglian) Division. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Also the edit summery the whole British Empire did not fight at the Battle of Jerusalem thats correct neither did the whole German and Ottoman Empires but they are listed on the opponents side. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the information but what is your source? And what is your source for all the other unit names you have added willy nilly without citations. We don't know that the countries within the German and Ottoman Empires fought in their country groupings as did these colonials. But until this information is provided it is a lot better to give details that are known and verifiable rather than not, simply because we don't know the same detail for the non English speaking countries. --Rskp (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You dont need to add citations for unit names unless there in dispute. As no cn tags were added that does not seem to be the case. The source is the same as the one you asked for and was provided at Talk:Battle of Romani Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

These units names you have added do not appear in any of the sources used to edit this article. The web site you got the names from asks for users to acknowledge it. So why don't you want to say where you got them from? What are you hiding? You should be up front and acknowledge sources when you use them instead of pretending its your own research. --Rskp (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney edit

Regarding your "Revision as of 21:48, 7 December 2011 (edit)delete section as its not unique to that one regiment all light horse etc have it" I'm glad you did. It was a hang over from the article before it was edited up to GA standard.

The Queen's Lancashire Regiment is not light horse its infantry.

Therein lies the reason why I have painstakingly added in the word 'infantry' because its so difficult to keep the mounted and the infantry clearly identified in this all arms engagement. --Rskp (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood the summery, the point was its was not unique to this one regiment, several were awarded it like all the light horse regiments. But glad you agree.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no misunderstanding Jim Sweeney, except that you referred to an infantry regiment as a light horse regiment. Please take care that you double check next time, and please provide citations when you can. Its not over citing to identify where information comes from. --Rskp (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Jaffa

The battle of Jaffa redirects here and is included in this article. As Jaffa is around forty miles from Jerusalem [1] and recognised as a separate battle by the award of its own battle honour (Battle honours of the British and Imperial Armies) it should be separated into its own article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request

were they only armed with hand grenades and nothing else ?

I would assume they probably did not have swords because they were Ottoman infantry, but they probably had rifles and bayonets. The source does not state that they had rifles and bayonets, so to say so would be outside the scope of the source. My understanding is that they probably would not have gone on parade, leave alone taken to the field, without their rifles and bayonets. --Rskp (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 01:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

---

• Battle of Jerusalem → Battle of Jerusalem (1917)
• Battle for Jerusalem → Battle for Jerusalem (1948)

– Are the words "for" versus "of" enough to differentiate these two subjects from each other? I'm not sure, but I'm weakly leaning towards "I don't think so". If that is the case, then these two articles should be moved away from their current titles to titles with a disambiguator (Battle for Jerusalem (1948) was the former title of Battle for Jerusalem), and then their former titles (Battle of Jerusalem and Battle for Jerusalem) should both be converted to redirects towards Siege of Jerusalem (a disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Put the dates in and disambiguate between them properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Thinking about it it's incredible it didn't happen before. Frenditor (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst "for" and "of" are obviously different words, there is of course a lot of scope for confusion. The way to sort this out is not by disambiguation, though, but this is a textbook case for a hatnote. Those hatnotes are already in place, hence I cannot see a need to change anything. Schwede66 19:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• What about the more than 10 other possibly undistinguished subjects at Siege of Jerusalem that could be considered battles as well? Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand your question. There's ten of them, so disambiguation by year is an absolute necessity. Hatnotes work well for two articles, or maybe three. Is that what you are getting at? Schwede66 08:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Opposing this move as proposed also means that you do not believe that any of the "Siege of Jerusalem" subjects on the disambiguation page could be referred to as "Battle of Jerusalem" or "Battle for Jerusalem". Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• That's also covered by the hatnote, so no issue. Schwede66 18:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Battle of Jerusalem has no primary meaning, this by itself should be reason alone to disambiguate it. And at least until now, no-one presented evidence on the contrary. Frenditor (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – topics are disambiguated based on how they are commonly known, not based on how they may be known. SSTflyer 10:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Entry into the City

Was Allenby's entry into the city on foot in part motivated by the spectacle of the Kaiser's much more grandiose entry in 1898? Kablammo (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I went looking for an answer, and found it (in all places) on Wikipedia, amongst other sources;[2], [3], and adverted to by no less than John Julius Norwich, [4]. I will leave it to the authors of this article to determine whether to mention it in the article. Kablammo (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614214531/http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/jerusalemdecree.htm to http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/jerusalemdecree.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)