Talk:Charge at Huj

Assessment

This article overuses quotations. It is not a good idea to quote someone that explains the battle, the battle should be explained by the wikipedia text itself, using the quoted text as a reference. The 4º quote left an open quotation mark, and the following sentence has a period inside the quotation marks that should be outside.

The mentioned portrait "The Charge of the Warwickshire and Worcestershire Yeomanry at Huj", when was it painted? Most, but not all, of Lady Butler's works are from before 1923, and may be available for the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} licence. Cambalachero (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes incorporated quotes into text, apart from one which gives an idea of what they went through. There are two copies of the painting online, that I could find. One print in the museum that has a 2004 copywrite tag, presumably taken from the original, that they own. Another print for sale by Cranson Fine Art, I'm not sure of the copywrite here. They are also selling copies of the Defence of Rorkes Drift, which was commissioned by Queen Victoria and is still in the royal collection. So they do not own it, and Butlers works are freely available, most gallerys in the UK have at least one for sale. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Image of the charge uploaded. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Strength

Tha article states

The only mounted troops in the area were 170 yeomanry - two full squadrons and two half squadrons from the Worcestershire and Warwickshire Yeomanry

Really? 170 troops equated to a single squadron in the British Army at this time. Even allowing for attrition... Hamish59 (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit waring

This post has been moved from RoslynSKP's talk page as it relates to this article.

Your edits to Charge at Huj have been reverted again. There is a WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Ottoman Turkish Empire wording dispute as you well know to use Turkish where context is clearly in favour of this term not just in one article as you are claiming. Turkish was the original wording not Ottoman which you changed it to. Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That consensus was quite clearly to do with one article - it did not and does not relate to any other article on Wikipedia. This is confirmed by the agreement on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that status quo ante bellum would apply. --Rskp (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case why are you editing not only against consensus but against the status quo ante bellum changing Turkish to Ottoman. Turkish was used first, when the article was created and you changed it to Ottoman yesterday. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

3RR on Charge at Huj

[moved from RoslynSKP talk page]

Roslyn; Just a note that you've made 3 reverts at Charge at Huj in the past 24-hours and to be careful not to breach WP:3RR. Please keep your discussions to the talk page for the time being, thanks. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Marcus, see discussion here. --Rskp (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't article talk page material, it pertains to you personally, but here's your record:

• (cur | prev) 01:03, 27 November 2013‎ RoslynSKP (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,039 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 583466622 by Jim Sweeney (talk)revert per status quo ante bellum agreed on Administrators' noticeboard) (rollback 1 edit | undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 00:46, 26 November 2013‎ RoslynSKP (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,039 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 583313799 by Jim Sweeney (talk)consensus for use of colloquial term for Ottoman Empire does not extend to other articles) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 00:21, 26 November 2013‎ RoslynSKP (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,039 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 583064145 by Jim Sweeney (talk)fix link) (undo | thank)

I'll report anyone to WP:3RRNB should any more reverts crop up in or shortly after the next 24-hours. Now do run along and quit posting messages to article talk pages that don't belong. Being a bright-line rule WP:3RR is not open to discussion nor interpretation. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish

As there appears to have been a consensus reached I have restored this edit - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Arbitrary break. Anotherclown (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That consensus related only to the dispute at Talk:Anzac Mounted Division. No other articles were mentioned. --Rskp (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the ANI discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive256#Moving_forward.3F did not make any such decision, you and Jim merely agreed to discuss the issues on the talk page in question. Secondly, the consensus reached here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Arbitrary_break clearly post dates the ANI thread so the issues have now moved on since then. There was majority support at a project level in that discussion that the term “Turkish” was not derogatory or POV due to its use in the majority of reliable sources. As I see it there is no requirement to discuss issues of terminology on ever single page that they are used on where such consensus exists. What policy are you basing your disregard for WP:3RR by continuing to make these changes? On the surface this looks to me like disruptive editing. Surely it would be easier just to move on and focus on writing articles? Anotherclown (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The consensus sanctions "continuing use of 'Turkish' where context is clearly in favor of the term." Are you suggesting that simply adding AustralianRupert's note gives that context? --Rskp (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No by using the sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charge at Huj. 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/20111121082337/http://www.worcestercitymuseums.org.uk/coll/worsor/wos3.htm to http://www.worcestercitymuseums.org.uk/coll/worsor/wos3.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) 00:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)