This article is within the scope of WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Evangelical Christianity 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.Evangelical ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityEvangelical Christianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'm seeing a lot of copy-and-paste content here -- not the entire page from one source, but sentences taken piecemeal from elsewhere (and not just the direct quotes appropriately marked as such). There's copying from here and here, for instance.— Moriwen (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Moriwen: Nearly all the content in the article at the moment is from either E. J. H. Nash or Titus Trust - I've noted in edit comments where it came from. This significant subject was covered incompletely across a couple of articles about people and organisations connected to the camps; this is an attempt to bring the content about the camps themselves into one article.
On the first one, you may be correct - the Smyth content came from Titus Trust, where it mostly seems to have been added about five years ago, and looks like it may have been written with insufficent care for sources. It's probably too long in any case.
The second is a false positive, though - if you look, it cites Wikipedia as a source. The text looks familiar because it comes from our own E. J. H. Nash article, and has been reused here in cut-down form with appropriate acknowledgement in the edit comments. TSP (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've done an edit to try and clean up any derivative text from the Christian Today article. I think most of the issue, though, is that both the source and our article fairly closely follow the victims' statement - I've cut that down a bit, it's a bit less notable now time has passed and there have been further developments. TSP (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
