Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Declined, based on official naming at [1], prior consensus at WP:Australia over ANZAC and predominance of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as the basis by those supporting the change Gnangarra 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Gnangarra 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division

Oppose -- The precise location for the previous discussion is: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Continuing problems regarding Anzac/ANZAC/Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. The discussion seems to be between whether the article should be at its official name of Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division or the common name ANZAC, not on capitalisation. ANZAC is an acronym for "Australia and New Zealand Army Corps". As an acronym the use of block capitals is correct. Accordingly the article should stay where it is, but the target is appropriate as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support As this issue affects New Zealanders as well as Australians involved in the Military History project, the main forum for this dispute has been Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. This forum decided that 'Anzac Mounted Division' was the preferred title as it was widely used in the literature, while the formally correct 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division' was too unwieldy. Further the earlier discussion reached a consensus that the use of the acronym ANZAC for the name of the mounted division was incorrect. [see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#ANAZC By the time the Anzac Mounted Division was formed, men who served in the original ANZAC were serving on the Western Front as well as forming the nucleus of the new mounted division.

I've copied this section regarding published sources from the second Mil Hist discussion -

The acronym ANZAC is correct when its referring to the 'Australian and New Zealand Army Corps', not when it refers to the 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division'. --Rskp (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ANZAC acronym was not only used by the corps but by several other Australian and New Zealand formations as well see:

Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further as RoslynSKP has brought sources in above, a source used by this editor in the First Transjordan attack on Amman (1918) article the "Anzac Mounted Division General Staff War Diary". First World War Diaries AWM4, 1-60-13PART1. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. March 1917" [4] uses Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, ANZAC Mounted Division and A & N Z Mounted Division. The only version it does not use is the proposed move. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming number of sources use Anzac because an army corps did not form part of the mounted division. Further the cited literature which has been the basis for edits in the Sinai and Palestine campaign describe the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade's 4th Battalion simply as the 4th Battalion; the awm website appears the only source for suggesting the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps formed a battalion in this camel brigade.

The reason this page should be moved remains the consensus reached on two occasions by the Military History Project's discussion page that 'Anzac Mounted Division' be used instead of 'ANZAC Mounted Division' and instead of 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division.' --Rskp (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That right the corps did not form part of the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, but thats not what this is about its about the acronym ANZAC. Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Military History Project's discussion page has reached a consensus that the acronym should not be used to describe the Anzac Mounted Division. This article must be moved to reflect that consensus as well as the content of the article.--Rskp (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus, and as above WP:Australia consensus is to use ANZAC for the military. However from the above if you are saying the acronym should not be used, should it revert to it formal title Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. Which would close this debate now. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus of the Mil Hist decided the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division was too unwieldy and agreed Anzac Mounted Division was the preferred name. Please see [5]. These same arguments are being repeated and repeated only because of one editor. Its time to move on and accept the acronym refers only to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, not to every unit in which Australians and New Zealanders served together.--Rskp (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Australia is not the appropriate venue for a discussion which involves not only New Zealanders and Australians but other interested editors. The general Military History discussion page is. --Rskp (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See above comments. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ANZAC was only introduced to this article on 8 June 2010 and then only on the basis of the Australian War Memorial reference Jim Sweeney relies on, despite Bou's influential 'A History of Australia's Mounted Arm' referring to the 'Anzac Mounted Division'. --Rskp (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to add that I did not add it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If it was an acronym, it doesn't matter. It is common in UK/Australian/New Zealand English to use lower case for acronyms, as in Nato, Aids, and Anzac. So however we interpret the name, I think a rename is OK. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In New Zealand and Australian English it's _always_ ANZAC, except for some very recent government publications (I suspect that this is largely the results of over-zealous copy editors, personally). Even the NZ and AU references use for Anzac_biscuit is ANZAC over Anzac. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing arguments[edit]

The Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division is widely known in the literature as the Anzac Mounted Division, although it has also been referred to as the A. & N. Z. Mounted Division and the ANZAC Mounted Division. This last is incorrect as the acronym stands for the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which clearly did not form a mounted division. The latest general history of the Australian mounted arm by Bou uses 'Anzac Mounted Division.' This name has also been agreed to during two discussion on the Military History Project discussion page regarding the use of the name in full and with the acronym. On the basis of these two consensuses the name of the mounted division has been changed in all the relevant articles to 'Anzac Mounted Division' without causing an edit war. Can this article be moved now that more than seven days has elapsed since the original request to move was made? --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show where consensus was agreed at MILHIST, as above consensus was agreed at WP:Australia to use ANZAC for the military. The authority on the Australian military the Australian War Memorial uses ANZAC and gives an explanation for the use of the acronym. There is no new comments here just repeating everything over and over. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly the links to the discussion at MILHIST are here at [6] and here at [7]. I have deliberately chosen not to engage in the WP:Australia discussion as this issue concerns New Zealand as well as Australia and is more properly discussed on the main Military History Project talk page rather than a sub page. As can be seen from the links I've just provided, the subject has been fully aired in extensive discussions on MILHIST, firstly regarding the use of the acronym and secondly regarding the use of the official name. On both occasions these two discussions resulted in a consensus that the Anzac Mounted Division is the appropriate name for this unit on Wikipedia. There is nothing new in Jim Sweeney's closing argument, he is repeating himself and his attempt to move the discussion on to a sub page could only create more unnecessary repetition. This issue has been resolved by MILHIST. --Rskp (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry both there is no consensus to use Anzac over ANZAC in any of those links. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we had better leave that for a disinterested editor to decide. --Rskp (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division – The consensus of military historians is to use Anzac Mounted Division instead of the cumbersome correct full name of the division, the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, or its abbreviation, A. & N.Z. Mounted Division. Please re-assess the name of this article, as continued use of the all capitals version can only lead to confusion with the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, known as ANZAC which was disbanded in 1916. Relisted. BDD (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Rskp (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think you need to show how things have changed since the last move request was declined. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that GraemeLeggett and Peacemaker67. I was concerned to see "ANZAC Division" has begun to be used, quite recently in the Desert Mounted Corps article, and I thought that it might be time to revisit this issue. Also the first requested move had three votes to support the move to Anzac Mounted Division and only one opposed. This consensus should have seen it moved.
  1. The first move request got bogged down in finding sources without really addressing the main problem which is confusing the Anzac Mounted Division with the ANZAC. As Hawkeye7 pointed out in his 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC) post (see WikiProject Military history Archive 108 No. 53) "Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division was, in practice, too cumbersome a name, so "Anzac Mounted Division" came into use. The all caps usage is muddle headed."
  2. I don't think sufficient consideration was given to the two consensus of MILHIST to use Anzac Mounted Division, nor to Hawkeye7's comment, "This is the consensus of military historians and I see no reason not to follow."(from the same post) --Rskp (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the first requested move had three votes to support the move to Anzac Mounted Division and only one opposed. This consensus should have seen it moved." - Consensus is not determined based on the number of votes cast. It is determined by the strength of the arguments. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that AussieLegend. The strengths of the closing arguments in 1 above don't seem to follow WP:POLL, either. --Rskp (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with the above comments. Nothing has changed and I don't see how this causes any confusion. The official naming still seems to be in place. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose same reasons as in 1 above.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two oppose votes cast by AussieLegend and Jim Sweeney don't follow any logic. Could these editors clarify their positions? --Rskp (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what needs clarification. Having read the arguments in Requested move 1 and having reviewed the evidence presented, I am convinced that the closer was correct in his determination that the page should not be moved. I agree with the statement made by GraemeLeggett and which was supported by Peacemaker67, that the nominator needs to demonstrate what has changed since Requested move 1 that would justify ignoring the outcome of that discussion. If no such demonstration is forthcoming, based on the evidence already presented, I have to oppose any requested move. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing arguments[edit]

  1. Despite a clear consensus of Wikipedia editors agreeing to use Anzac Mounted Division, the first requested move was denied on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which was never explained. This decision is also questionable according to WP:POLL as the closing argument for the first move, on the basis of Wikipedia's article title policy, was not answered. The reply was about whether MILHIST had reached two consensus or not. --Rskp (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to dispute the closure of the first move request, you should use WP:MRV. Further WP:CCC, as we have a new consensus discussion, the result of the first can be overturned, affirmed, or result in a failure to find a new consensus. However, with the new move discussion you started here, it will not result in implementation of the first move request, since that discussion has been closed, and would be judged on the basis of the discussion here in 2013, not back in 2012, since WP:CCC. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The reason I outlined the problems with the first move request, was to show the weakness of the arguments put forward by the two opposing voters who rely on it, to justify they opposition to this second move request. --Rskp (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to forget WP:POLL which places significant weight on the quality of the argument. --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. A consensus of military historians use Anzac Mounted Division and its been suggested by Hawkeye7 that using the all capitals version is "muddle headed," because it is leading to confusion with the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, known as ANZAC which was disbanded in 1916. Confusion is being generated by the use of "ANZAC Division" instead of "Anzac Mounted Division" in the Desert Mounted Corps article which was active from 1916 to 1919. Further, the Anzac Mounted Division article is the only Wikipedia article title using block capitals which does not relate directly to the ANZAC. --Rskp (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only consensus that matters is that of Wikipedia editors, and consensus at the first move was the the article should not be moved. Hawkeye7's post is not relevant as he hasn't seen fit to involve himself in the discussions here. Above you've said "the first requested move was denied on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which was never explained", yet here you're advocating a move based on that very principal, because "the Anzac Mounted Division article is the only Wikipedia article title using block capitals which does not relate directly to the ANZAC". --AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't attack me AussieLegend. Hawkeye7's involvement or non-involvement here should not form part of the closing arguments.--Rskp (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have a very strange idea of what constitutes an attack. "You've" and "you're" are not personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Support' My primary arguments for the move are -

  1. Twice this issue has been discussed by MILHIST and Anzac Mounted Division agreed to.
  2. The all capital version is muddle headed because it confuses the mounted division which was operational from 1916 to 1919 with the army corps which was disbanded in 1916.
  3. Confusion can only result from the use of "ANZAC" when its not related to the army corps, see "ANZAC Division" in the Desert Mounted Corps article, for an example of how confusion can develop.
  4. While consensus is important, WP:POLL is also important as it places significant weight on the quality of the argument.

as well as the issue of the Wikipedia search which AussieLegend highlights. --Rskp (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response well then the formation should know what it was called.
  • The "ANZAC Mounted Division General Staff War Diary". First World War Diaries AWM4, 1-60-13PART1. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. March 1917" [8] uses Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, ANZAC Mounted Division and A & N Z Mounted Division. The only version it does not use is the proposed move.
  • The Australian War Museum uses ANZAC Mounted Division [9]

How can any reader mistake a division for a corps, that has not even been mentioned in the same articles? But this is just repeating what has been said before.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are all from one source, the Australian War Memorial web site. On the other hand, the first requested move, two MILHIST discussions, and military historians all agree, Anzac Mounted Division adequately identifies and differentiates the mounted division formed from veterans of ANZAC, from the army corps. --Rskp (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested moves 1 and 2 - problems with decisions[edit]

  • The first requested move, which had a consensus to move, was denied.
  • The reason for opposing the second move, that there was no consensus, ignores the earlier consensus.
  • The arguments, which were not evaluated, according to WP:POLL should have been. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You want to look at WP:Move review. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Anzac Mounted Division calls itself the "A. and N. Z. Mounted Division" in its war diaries. --Rskp (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be accurate it uses Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, ANZAC Mounted Division and A & N Z Mounted Division. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be COMPLETELY accurate. At the top of each page of the Anzac Mounted Division's war diary "A & NZ Mounted Division" is written by hand. --Rskp (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable. ANZAC was created from "Australia & New Zealand Army Corps" and while ANZAC was used regularly in communications, the long form was still used for many years in written form such as books and letters. We used to do the same thing in the RAAF right into the 1980s and beyond. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see that you now agree. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three instances on three pages out of 41 sheets of one war diary does not indicate anything. The division called itself the "A & NZ Mounted Division" on the top of EVERY PAGE OF EVERY WAR DIARY. --Rskp (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So ? are you now suggesting a move to A & NZ Mounted Div Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see we agree on the identity of the official name of the division. --Rskp (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what he said. You seem to be misinterpreting a lot of what others are saying, both here and at the move review. I suggest you read what people are saying more thoroughly. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The official name Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division had never been in doubt. Time now to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, Gnangarra states "The first move request closed based on arguments with the Official name as shown by Australian War Memorial being ANZAC Mounted Division." [10] It appears this editor made the decision not to move the article on a false premise. Then this same editor argues "As the second request also didnt establish to create a name that is anything other than the official name."[11] The issue of the official name needs to be sorted out and reflected in the article name.

The changing value of consensus needs to be addressed also. During the first request it was ignored while the second request and review can't see passed it. --Rskp (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: Procedural close This request has been heard twice already and the determination of the move review on 15 October was that the last request was closed appropriately.(non-admin closure) Labattblueboy (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division – The first move request had a clear consensus to move from informed and interested editors, but was ignored. The second move request was denied on the basis of a consensus for the status quo without the opposers discussing the issues involved. The first informed consensus should result in the article being moved. Rskp (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy procedural close: We just went through a discussion of the same proposal by the same proponent, backed up with a close endorsed in a move review. Nothing substantial has changed. Try again in a year. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The changing value of consensus during these move requests remains to be investigated. --Rskp (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further the decision made during the first move request was on the basis of a misunderstanding of the official name of the division. --Rskp (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive arguments based on article title policy were submitted to the first and second move requests. The arguments presented address the issues raised by those who opposed the move. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first and second move requests failed; if you believe that they were closed incorrectly, you may wish to consider a Wikipedia:Move review. If they were closed correctly, you need to succinctly summarise the current position (not the history) as you see it. The aim of consensus-building tools such as requested moves is that parties with no previous knowledge of the discussion or topic can read a short precis of the issue and then debate it; attempting to do this without the short precis defeats the purpose. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose same reasons as stated in 1 and 2 and just wondering how this works with your comment in 2 above that the official name was A & NZ Mounted Division ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the name of all that's holy, why? does it really mean so much.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Requested Move 4[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: Procedural close, no action taken. This is just another reopening of the same discussion that closed as no consensus just days ago, and was determined to be legitimate in a move review. The nominator is warned that these continual move requests are becoming disruptive. Cúchullain t/c 12:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division – This move would bring the title in line with similar articles, for example the Australian Mounted Division and the Imperial Mounted Division. This all capitals name of the mounted division makes it unique in the Wikipedia articles describing the campaigns the division took part in.

Anzac Mounted Division is recognisable - the literature regarding the Sinai and Palestine campaign refers to the 'Anzac Mounted Division'. See Hill 1978 p. 96, Powles 1922 p. 22, Wavell 1968 p. 90 et al. Bostock served in the 3rd Light Horse Brigade; when his brigade moved to the Imperial Mounted Division, he wrote - "The Anzac Mounted Division still kept its name and was combined with the 1st and 2nd Brigades, New Zealand Mounted, and the 22nd Yeomanry. The new division was called the Imperial Mounted Division and consisted of the 3rd and 4th Light Horse Brigades and the 5th and 6th Yeomanry. We of the 3rd Brigade rather resented the change, as we lost the old name of Anzac. [Bostock, Harry P. (1982). The Great Ride: The Diary of a Light Horse Brigade Scout, World War 1. Perth: Artlook Books p.62] None of these published sources use ANZAC.

Only the Australian War Memorial web site uses the all capitals version.

The Australian Government protection of the word ANZAC here [12] refers to the all capitals version and the Anzac version.

It is naturally and concisely the name of the mounted division as it briefly identifies the unit rather than the potentially confusing official name of the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, the A. & N. Z. Mounted Division, as it appears at the top of the divisions War Diary which can be accessed here [13] or the A and NZ Mounted Division.

The Anzac Mounted Division precisely and unambiguously identifies the mounted division whereas the all capitals version is likely to be misunderstood as to do with the army corps which was disbanded the same year the Anzac Mounted Division was formed. The mounted division has been described as the "ANZAC division" in the article a number of times which only adds to the confusion.

Anzac Mounted Division is consistently used in all articles describing the battles and campaign the division was involved in during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign.

This is not a major move, from the redirect.Rskp (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Australia consensus was to do with the military not the mounted division. The MILHIST discussions regarding the name of the mounted division can be found here [14] and here [15] --Rskp (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally moved from Anzac Mounted Division by Grant65 who had not edited the article before, nor since, saying (moved Anzac Mounted Division to ANZAC Mounted Division: It was always upper case (ANZAC) when the division existed; the style "Anzac" was not common during WW1. See http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/anzac/acronym/index.asp), relying on the Australian War Memorial's discussion of the acronym. --Rskp (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has just been closed within 24 hours and just had a move review and to answer the claim that only the AWM uses ANZAC these books, amongst others, also use ANZAC-
  • The Australian Army in World War I by Robert Fleming
  • The New Zealand Expeditionary Force in World War I By Wayne Stack
  • The ANZAC Experience: New Zealand, Australia and Empire in the First World War By Christopher Pugsley
  • Doctrine and Reform in the British Cavalry 1880-1918 By Stephen Badsey
  • Megiddo 1918: The Last Great Cavalry Victory by Bryan Perrett
  • Born to Lead a Portrait of New Zealand Military Commanders By Glyn Harper, ‎Joel Hayward
  • The British Army in World War I (3): The Eastern Fronts By Mike Chappell
  • British Army in Battle and Its Image 1914-18 By Stephen Badsey
  • World War I Almanac By David R. Woodward
  • British Fighting Methods in the Great War By Paddy Griffith -
  • Allenby's Military Medicine: Life and Death World War I Palestine By Eran Dolev
  • Decisive Battles: From Yorktown to Operation Desert Storm By Jonathon Riley
  • Bully Beef and Balderdash By Graham Wilson
  • In the intrest of fairness several books also use lower case
Web sites
  • The Australian Army In March 1916, the ANZAC Mounted Division was formed... [16]
  • National Army Museum The presentation of medals to troops of ANZAC Mounted Division by General Sir Edmund Allenby, 1918[17]
  • The Long Long Trail The ANZAC Mounted Division in 1914-1918 [18]
  • Imperial War Museum ANZAC Mounted Division, at 10am on 16 November. A view of the ANZAC Mounted Division bivouacs, and a panorama of Jaffa filmed from the sea. [19] Major General H.G. Chauvel GOC, ANZAC Mounted Division, with his staff near Serapeum Egypt. He was appointed 16th March 1916.

[20]

  • Alexander Turnbull Library Charge of the ANZAC Mounted Division, Palestine, by Charles Guy Powles. 1917 [21]

Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor with a passing interest in this issue (in that I am Australian), I consider this has gone past the point of any possible benefit to WP, and is becoming a disruptive personal crusade. Once this RM is speedily closed, as I expect it will be, if any further RMs are lodged I will be reporting this behaviour to ANI and requesting a ban on RMs on this article for 12 months. There clearly is no consensus for this move. Please stop. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Harry Chauvel[edit]

Harry Chauvel is listed in the inf box as a notable commander. While not downgrading his achievements, I would suggest they were while he was GOC of the Desert Mounted Corps and not with the ANZAC Mounted Division. Any thoughts. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Jim, with this edit, I made an attempt to present the same information in the infobox but remove the term "notable". Not sure if that helps or not... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well done, that I think works a lot better. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article name contested[edit]

See requested moves

The all capitals version of the name of this article is contested.

No it acknowledges that when the division was formed, in Egypt, it was part of the I ANZAC Corps. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, do I have to repeat Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (known as ANZAC). --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anzac Mounted Division is recognisable - the literature regarding the Sinai and Palestine campaign refers to the 'Anzac Mounted Division'. Only the Australian War Memorial web site uses the all capitals version, while the Australian Government protection of the word ANZAC here [22] refers to both versions.
Wrong again see examples in archives and the section below.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes it is. See the Australian Government link.
  • It is naturally and concisely the name of the mounted division as it briefly identifies the unit rather than the potentially confusing and long, official name of the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, and its abbreviation, the A. & N. Z. Mounted Division, which appears at the top of each page of the divisions War Diary which can be accessed here [23] or the A and NZ Mounted Division.
How can a correct name be confusing, but if your confused, you should have realised the error by now.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you can't argue about the subject you always attack the editor. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Anzac Mounted Division precisely and unambiguously identifies the mounted division whereas the all capitals version is likely to be misunderstood as to do with the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which was disbanded the same year the Anzac Mounted Division was formed.
So does ANZAC and the corps was renamed I ANZAC Corps which was what the division was part of see above. Only an idiot would confuse reading ANZAC Mounted Division with ANZAC Corps.Jim Sweeney (talk)
When you can't argue about the subject you always attack the editor. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anzac Mounted Division is consistently used in all articles describing the battles and campaign the division was involved in during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign.
Only because you have gone through every article changing the name to your preferred version. Even in articles where you had no other input.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. There was no need to change the name of the division. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it has been Jim Sweeney who edited the 3rd Light Horse Brigade here [24] the Australian Light Horse here [25] the 2nd Light Horse Brigade here [26], the 1st Light Horse Brigade here [27], Desert Mounted Corps here [28] and Chaytor's Force here [29] calling them minor copyedits but changing the name of the Anzac Mounted division all on 22 October. That series of edits is disruptive editing and I have reverted them, only to have Jim Sweeney reinstate them. --Rskp (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The all capitals version of the name of the mounted division makes it unique in the Wikipedia articles describing the campaigns the division took part in. Further it has led to other confusing names for the mounted division such as the "ANZAC division" and "ANZ MTD DIV" which have been mentioned in this article a number of times.
See above re confused. As the other divisions did not use acronym that is understandable. [Jim Sweeney unsigned post]
  • Already Anzac Mounted Division is a redirect and indeed there was a consensus for the first move request to this version, while the WP:Australia consensus was to do with the military not the mounted division. The Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history discussions regarding the name of the mounted division can be found here [30] and here [31] --Rskp (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has all been addressed in four requested moves and a move review by Admins. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, these issues have not been addressed, just swept under the carpet. The all capitals version of Anzac Mounted Division goes against Wikipedia:Article titles policy. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANZAC over Anzac[edit]

See requested moves

For the benefit of the editor who refuses to drop they stick. For every book that uses ANZAC there is one that uses Anzac. So we need to examine other higher quality sources.

So if we look to the nation that provides the most soldiers the Australian Army. They use ANZAC Mounted Division here - In March 1916, the ANZAC Mounted Division was formed... [32]

  • Then there are museums with higher standards than authors.
The National Army Museum uses ANZAC Mounted Division The presentation of medals to troops of ANZAC Mounted Division by General Sir Edmund Allenby, 1918[33]
The Imperial War Museum uses ANZAC Mounted Division, at 10am on 16 November. A view of the ANZAC Mounted Division bivouacs, and a panorama of Jaffa filmed from the sea. [34] Major General H.G. Chauvel GOC, ANZAC Mounted Division, with his staff near Serapeum Egypt. He was appointed 16th March 1916.[35]
The Australian War Memorial uses ANZAC Mounted Division [36]
  • The division itself in its own war diary Appendix E1/17 [38] The force consisted of the following units ANZAC Mtd Division...
  • Here page 19. dated 4/5/16 and page 22 ANZAC Mounted Division in a signal to the 52nd Division. [39]
  • By the 4th Cavalry Division in a signal ANZAC Mounted Division page 13. [40]

Also as the article explains the ANZAC Mounted Division was not the only military unit that used the acronym during the war. Other users were the I ANZAC Corps in Egypt and later on the Western Front, II ANZAC Corps on the Western Front and the 1st (ANZAC) Wireless Signal Squadron, which served in the Mesopotamia Campaign. Also part of the EEF was the 4th (ANZAC) Battalion, Imperial Camel Corps Brigade. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to resolve situation[edit]

G'day all, can we please try to get some consensus? My own personal view is that "Anzac" is the correct presentation here, but to be honest I don't think my personal opinion matters and I'm more than happy to leave it as "ANZAC" because it is just that, my own personal opinion. At the end of the day, this issue has been discussed and disputed by many people, including a number of published academics who also have differences of opinion on this (there have been scholarly works in journals written on this very topic). So, my suggestion is to accept that we, as Wikipedians, cannot resolve this here and move on so that we can focus on improving other aspects of the article. In saying that, though, so that everyone can be happy with the article, I think it is important that all views be reflected. If the majority of sources used by the main editor when they wrote the article use "ANZAC Mounted Division" then the article should probably use that, particularly as it seems that past attempts to move the article from that name have not gained consensus (I note several above appear to have been closed that way, although I didn't participate so perhaps I've misinterpreted their results); nevertheless, I also think it would be best if a footnote was added to the article, or even something in the body of the text clarifying that sources don't agree on how to handle this. It wouldn't be hard to do it in a way that doesn't interupt the flow of the article and/or confuse the reader. For instance it could either be presented in a footnote like this: "Sources are divided about whether to capitalise "ANZAC" in the division's name, but this article employs "ANZAC Mounted Division" because the majority of sources used in writing it employ this style." Or, a short sentence could be added to the ANZAC section along similar lines, citing the sources that vary in the way they present the information. Additionally, the lead could be tweaked to acknowledge the situation, by saying something like this: "The ANZAC Mounted Division (officially the "Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division" but also abbreviated in some sources as "Anzac Mounted Division", or "A and NZ Mounted Division") was a mounted..." Thoughts on this approach? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a great deal more than your personal opinion AustralianRupert, as I have pointed out in the subsection 'Article name contested,' above which places Anzac Mounted Division as the correct Wikipedia article name, according to the Wikipedia guidelines for naming articles. As explained in 'Article name contested' above 'Anzac Mounted Division' fits Wikipedia style; it is the natural, concise, precise, unambiguous name, which is consistently used. The all capitals version, however, is unique in the Wikipedia articles which describe the campaigns the division took part in. There is simply no other all capitals word in those article. Jim Sweeney's not very sporting response to this post was to cover it up here [41] claiming (‪Article name contested: see move review and requested move which were closed earlier this month‬), while failing to mention he had collapsed most of the subsection. The use of 'ANZAC/Anzac' demonstrates that the sources do not agree and also reflects the Australian Government's view. [42] Sources from the move applications could substantiate these two useages. AustralianRupert, it is the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, that is its official name, so the all capitals version along with the Anzac Mounted Division should come afterwards, as they are abbreviations and deviate from the official name.

Regarding consensus. The first consensus was reached during the first move request. This was ignored when the all capital versions was misunderstood to be the official name of the division. This decision also ignored the two MILHIST discussions here [43] and here [44]. The second so called consensus was based on two votes for the deeply flawed first decision against.

The lack of clarity has resulted in such variations as "ANZAC division" and "ANZ MTD DIV." Anzac Mounted Division would clearly reflect the heritage of the original troopers who had fought in the original ANZAC without all the confusion. --Rskp (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a lack of clarify but to ease the flow of reading/writing, something you should take note of. But that does not account for you other additions against WP:COMMON NAME, adding EEF to the inf box when the division never served as Army Troops. Also the large list of battles to the engagements section. Never mind the ridiculous ANZAC/Anzac. All of which have notes asking not to be changed. I would suggest any change to the above is discussed on talk. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Following ARs suggestion added some sources use the lower case Anzac etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the source, Jim; your solution seems a fair compromise, in my opinion. Regarding some of the other issues, is there a compromise solution that can be reached for those also? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the inf box changing Harry Chauvel to Henry is against MOS per WP:COMMONNAME, that FA Class article is also called Harry Chauvel. This is something which has been pointed out by several editors over several articles. I note that RoslynSKP has made no attempt to change that article name etc. So that is just being disruptive.
Adding the EEF to the part of section. The division never served under EEF command as Army Troops. If it did can a reference be provided.
Adding the long list of battles to what is the engagements section not battle is just wrong and effects the presentation of the article. However I will concede this is a consensus can be reached.
The repeated changes to the lede adds wrong details, minor points that have no bearing on the article (change in name of Desert Column to Desert Mounted Corps) and do not conform to the sources used. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple more sources for the WP:COMMONNAME and simplified the intro so that its clear what the correct name is and which are the abbreviations. See Wikipedia policy on naming articles for guidance. Jim will need to add some sources, if he can find them. Henry is Chauvel's real name, Harry is his nick name. The article should be called Henry G. Chauvel out of respect for the man, but all my time has been taken up with continuing to get articles to GA and this running sore. --Rskp (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Respect for the man has nothing to do with it. It was what he was called during his lifetime. Suggest you concentrate your efforts of getting that article name changed before trying to change Wikipedia policy. Then you can move onto others Prince Harry, Bill Clinton spring to mind. Your stance is very narrow, I can then presume you were being disrespectful to me when calling me Jim? And what about the disrespect to all the New Zealanders, is the county not important enough to be identified by upper case ANZAC. Its also interesting to note one of the books your using to support your position is titled Chauvel of the Light Horse A Biography of General Sir Harry Chauvel so your not even following your own sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede section[edit]

The repeated attempts to change the lede section by adding minor points and those which have no bearing on the article are disruptive if not yet vandalism. Can any changes be de discussed on this page first. For example Gallipoli has no bearing on the formation of the division and as such should not be in the lede. Also the changing of Turkish to Ottoman when all sources use Turkish and there is a note added to clarify that point. The Transjordan did not come into existence until after the war in the 1920s. The formation of the Imperial Mounted Division and note from someone saying they were unhappy is way off focus and does not belong in the lede. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I think discussion before editing is going to be the only way fwd here (and in a number of other associated articles). This has got well past the point of being able to make bold edits. Anotherclown (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The quote from a member of the 3rd Light Horse Brigade on the establishment of the IMD, saying that he was unhappy about loosing the connection to Anzac is directly relevant. It speaks to the pride felt for service on Gallipoli and the work of the Anzac Mounted Division, in the Sinai. --Rskp (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On that note I have changed the wording from second battle of Gaza which was a cause of conflict to after April 1917. I was being bold but don't believe there would be any problem as its not controversial. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim - I've no issues with the edit but think it best we give Roslyn the chance to cmt. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was an easteregg which has been cracked. Thanks. --Rskp (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So there has been no attempt to discuss the lede and the inaccurate statements as documented above replaced. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are beginning to be apparent severe problems with WP:OWNERSHIP in this article. The introductory paragraphs are in great need of some information instead of circling round saying nothing. When units were attached to the division, it was while divisional units were elsewhere. If you don't have the sources see the Sinai and Palestine campaign articles. Otherwise the intro is misleading. --Rskp (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is an overview/summery of the article. As you have not said I presume this is what your referring to - "After April 1917, the standard order of battle was reduced to two Australian, one New Zealand and one British (artillery) brigade, although the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade and other British mounted brigades were temporarily attached several times during operations." That is an adequate summery for the lead especially seeing how many times bridges were attached and detached during the divisions service. Otherwise it would need a complete paragraph of its own. Also other brigades were not only attached while the division own brigades were elsewhere. So a little undue weight. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was in fact referring to mention of yeomanry being added without saying why. What is it about the establishment of the Imperial Mounted Division which is so unacceptable to you? If the IMD is not mentioned in the body of this article, it should be. --Rskp (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the formation of the Imperial Mounted Division be included in the lead of an article about the ANZAC Mounted Division. I would consider that way off focus.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about leading horses to water. Goodness! The 3rd Light Horse Brigade, which was part of the Anzac Mounted Division on establishment, was transferred to the IMD after about a year. Do you want to ignore this? Or do you think the 3rd LHB ceased to exist when it left AnzacMD? You need to think about context. --Rskp (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again why should the formation of another division be in the lead of this article. Its a minor event in the two year history and I have restored the lede version you deleted, which covers this. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal use of rollback[edit]

An illegal use of rollback occurred here [45]. This rollback did not revert vandalism, of the Anzac Mounted Division article. The edits rollbacked were not accidental, they were properly cited and clearly set out the various names of the division, so cannot be considered to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia. The editor who made the rollbacked edits was not a banned user. --Rskp (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above section. The reasons for the revert have already been explained more than once. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't have let it be marked as a minor edit, though and should have used a more descriptive edit summary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is properly cited and clearly set out information about the various names of the division, vandalism? This information along with the additional information about ANZAC and the transfer of the brigade to the IMD cannot be considered to be unhelpful in any way to the encyclopedia. It is certainly not vandalism. --Rskp (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rollback issue has been addressed, but if you guys keep edit warring I'll have to protect the page. m.o.p 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for all the names of the division[edit]

All the various names of the division have been given citations to explain why there are so many and who used them. Cutting some of these citations makes the issues more difficult to understand. --Rskp (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are breaching the 3RR by this edit [46] can you self revert as WP:CITEVAR refers as explained in the edit summary. Also there has never been any dispute that the division was called the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division so there is no need to cite that as has already been explained. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are not just added for information which is in dispute. They are required for all information added to Wikipedia. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At no time has the style of citations in this article been changed (which is what WP:CITEVAR is about) by me. --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In connection to WPCITEVAR the article uses a style which you keep breaching as the edit history clearly shows. Secondly see Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue ....many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Wikipedia's information. and ...Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The particular quote which is continually being cut from the article is a direct link to the contents page of the Australian official history where the divisional name is listed as one of the chapter headings. "Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918; Volume VII – The Australian Imperial Force in Sinai and Palestine, 1914–1918 (10th edition, 1941) Chapter 5, pp. 14, 57, 68, 73 and 10 other pages". Australian War Memorial. Retrieved 29 October 2013. This quotation does not change the style of quotations as the citations immediately before it is also a cite web "WWI, Sinai, Palestine and Syria". Australian Army. Retrieved 28 October 2013. --Rskp (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are breaching the 3RR starting with this edit [47] can you self revert. Re the comment above this the edit is not a "quote" but a reference to the book and should be Gullet, p.14 which is the style used by this article and not a web link to an external website. Do I need to repeat Wikipedia:Citation overkill one page number is enough if the source is reliable. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citation links to a contents page on the AWM website not to a particular page in the Australian official history. There is no citation overkill here, only recognition of the controversy over the numerous different names for the division. --Rskp (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No you know that the web page is for the book Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918 Volume VII – The Australian Imperial Force in Sinai and Palestine, 1914–1918 (10th edition, 1941). And as such as you referencing page numbers and as this article already uses that book which your well aware of the correct way to ref is as per WP:CITEVAR. Maybe if you stopped your disruptive editing across Wikipedia, see your edit history for details, this article could progress. Jim Sweeney (talk)
  • No I am not referencing page numbers, you should check before you cut. The citation references the content page on the AWM web site, which lists Anzac Mounted Division as one of the chapter headings. --Rskp (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the reference is for Gullet - Gullet Chapter V The Anzac Mounted Division, pp.54–73, changed to correct format for the book reference.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No the reference is for the contents page of the Australian Official history on the Australian War Memorial Web Site. --Rskp (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link is to Gullet's book, which is already used in the bibliography, so the correct way to cite as per WPCITEVAR is Gullet Chapter V The Anzac Mounted Division, pp.54–73. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Powles book part of NZ official history[edit]

See [48] where the publication is noted as being part of "New Zealand in the First World War 1914-1918," and here [49] where Powles book is listed. --Rskp (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No where on those links does it say its an New Zealand official history.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. --Rskp (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Jim Sweeney you are wrong. Check out Trove here [50]. --Rskp (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a link to another web site, where does Powles claim he' writing an official history.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gday Jim - fairly sure the Worldcat.org entry clears this up [51]. Have made this edit now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes good find, cannot dispute that.Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious tags added when war diary cites replace official history[edit]

These tags have been added, not to, in any way question the limited use of War Diaries as primary sources. These are very valuable and have been widely used, most often, in conjunction with other citations, but to question their being used instead of official history citations. --Rskp (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dubious tags were added to cites from Gullet the Australian official historian and one to the Australian War Memorial, I presume in error as they are not war diaries, so removed. In respect to them, are you sure you want to go down the route that they are [unreliable source?] as we would need to tag about thirty articles in the campaign series.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing - citations cut[edit]

"The Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division,<refFalls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 156/ref> abbreviated to the A and NZ Mounted Division,<refFalls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 169/ref> and by some sources to the ANZAC Mounted Division,[citation needed] and by others to the Anzac Mounted Division,<refBou, p.159/ref><refHill 1978 p. 96/ref><refPowles 1922 p. 22/ref><refWavell 1968 p. 90/ref> ..."

This series of sources have been cut in an disruptive editing attack on the article beginning here [52] --Rskp (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike your attempts its not disruptive. There is no need for more that one cite per point. Unless of course the information is suspect, and your adding more to make it look better. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill was there really any need to add four cites for Anzac in lower case. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citations quoting the British official history have been changed to the AWM web site and the division's war diary. These are not "better references and easily accessible" as Jim Sweeney claims here [53].

Yet the next edit [54] cuts the "easily accessible" direct link to the Australian official history on the AWM web site claiming WPCITEVAR, when the link is to the contents page on the web site. The contents page was deliberately chosen as a citation to substantiate the wide use of the Anzac Mounted Division of the version of the name. However, Jim Sweeney has changed the citation to one page of the official history, when the Anzac Mounted Division version of the name appears on the contents page and throughout the publication. I reinstated this citation here [55] to link with the AWM web site contents page. Jim Sweeney changed the citation, cutting the direct link to the easily accessible contents page, to a chapter of the Official Australian history here [56] when the name appears in this form throughout the book.

Then Jim Sweeney edited the information that the Commonwealth Government of Australia regulated the use of the acronym citing both 'ANZAC' and 'Anzac', to make it seem the all capitals version of the division's name is mentioned when it is the acronym of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps that is being discussed, here [57].

Then Jim Sweeney changed another reference to the official British history of the campaign to a war diary here [58].

Then Anotherclown changed a url citation to the whole of the official New Zealand history of the campaign by Powles which refers to the Anzac Mounted Division version of the name throughout the book, to one specific page here [59].

Then Anotherclown changed Jim Sweeney's version of Gullett's link which lost its url citation to become a chapter back down to specific page references, when the Anzac Mounted Division version of the name is used throughout the publication. [60] --Rskp (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So in a nutshell any edit, other than yours, is disruptive. I presume it was disruptive when I expanded the article from 7k+ bytes to almost 80k bytes. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Jim Sweeney, as you have disputed every edit I've made to this article. Changing official history citations to war diaries, changing urls to single pages when its the whole books which are being cited.

Then when I add the fact that the division was established with veterans of the Gallipoli campaign you cut it here [61] despite the source clearly setting out the establishment of the Anzac Mounted Division by troops from ANZAC.

Then you cut the ampersand in the abbreviation of the division's name here [62] when Wikipedia policy is clear that ampersands can be used in Wikipedia when its the names of organisations. --Rskp (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This all looks a bit of case of undue from where I'm sitting. Do any of the sources discuss the choice of ANZAC or Anzac, or is this section of the article just a continuation of the argy-bargy between Wikipedia editors? Finding different publications that use one form or the other and then name-dropping (with cites or not) smacks of OR, or reliance on primary sources to make some point that is not really relevant for the reader. At most it's material for a footnote, the simple fact of the matter is that both forms are used and that's all that needs be said. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No GreaemeLeggett the choice of the version of the name of the division is not under discussion here.--Rskp (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undue what? There are various forms of the division's name. We all agree. The citations I added were to sources which use these various names. There is no argy-bargy regarding the names. There is however regarding the citations. The argy-barge is about either citing the whole of the Australian and the New Zealand official histories of the campaign with url link, as I have, or one page from each without url, as Jim Sweeney and Anotherclown have. They claim this use of web citations is against the citation style of the article, but web citations are used throughout the article. Further citations to the British official history of the campaign have been cut and replaced with citations to war diaries. --Rskp (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANZAC section[edit]

I have removed the ANZAC section to its own article The ANZAC acronym. When I started it was supposed to try and explain the acronym and its use by Australia and New Zealand, not to become a battleground. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gallipoli in lead[edit]

The division was not formed by Gallipoli veterans. No doubt some members did serve there. Of the five brigades the artillery did not. Of the remaining four (three Australian and one New Zealand), men were left behind to look after the horses. Normally this was one man in every four. While the regiments were at Gallipoli they all suffered severe casualties. Which were replaced after that campaign. The New Zealanders then had to supply 2,000 men to make up to full strength the New Zealand Division for service on the Western Front. Then there is nothing anywhere that supports, one way or another, that the divisions train and support troops served at Gallipoli. So to say the division was formed by Gallipoli veterans is just not true.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where did the light horse and mounted rifle Gallipoli veterans go, if they didn't form the Anzac Mounted Division? Read your own reference. --Rskp (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to formation, units that would form the division's brigades served as part of the Force in Egypt from December 1914, and then in the Gallipoli Campaign. At Gallipoli, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Light Horse Brigades served dismounted with the New Zealand and Australian Division from May to December 1915. The 1st Light Horse Brigade saw action on 7 August at the Chessboard, while the 3rd Light Horse Brigade fought in the battle of the Nek and the 2nd Light Horse Brigade near Quinn's Post. [formation history Anzac Mounted Division] So they weren't Gallipoli veterans. What rubbish. YOU ARE A DISRUPTIVE EDITOR --Rskp (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A veteran (from Latin vetus, meaning "old") is a person who has had long service or experience in a particular occupation or field. The above are units (regiments/brigades). You also need to read previous post. I said "No doubt some members did serve there", but the establishment of the division was not all Gallipoli veterans which is what you point was.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above still refers, if you want to include that the divisions manpower ALL served at Gallipoli especially on the lead section it needs including in the body of the article with reliable sources. Note there are several that show the regiments were decimated in Gallipoli one even reduced to a strength of twenty-two men. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire/Turkey[edit]

I don't have a personal preference either way, but given that there is a discrepancy in the way the sources handle this point, perhaps a footnote might be appropriate. For instance, something like this might work (obviously, please feel free to use alternate wording if you disagree): {{#tag:ref|At the time of the First World War, the modern Turkish state did not exist, and instead it was part of the Ottoman Empire. While the terms have distinct historical meanings, within many English-language sources the term "Turkey" and "Ottoman Empire" are used synonymously, although many academic sources differ in there approaches.{{sfn|Fewster|Basarin|Basarin|2003|pp=xi–xii}} The sources used in this article predominately use the term "Turkey".|group=nb}}

The reference comes from here: Fewster, Kevin; Basarin, Vecihi; Basarin, Hatice Hurmuz (2003) [1985]. Gallipoli: The Turkish Story. Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-74114-045-5. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion and done.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Jim. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a workable solution and I support this too. (I've seen this handled in a similar way in Travers work on the Gallipoli Campaign if memory serves me correctly). Anotherclown (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lock step trio are at it again. It is POV to refer to the Ottoman Empire as Turkey in articles to do with the First World War. Turkey did not come into existence until after the war was well and truly over. --Rskp (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you read the Ottoman Turkish Empire article The Ottoman Empire, sometimes referred to as the Turkish Empire or simply Turkey, was a contiguous transcontinental empire founded by Turkish tribes under Osman Bey in north-western Anatolia in 1299. Its well cited and if editors of that article have no problem calling it Turkish, neither do I especially as explained above and the note in the article. So its hardly POV, a word you use way to much and in the wrong circumstances. AustralianRupert made a suggestion to stop a dispute, Anotherclown just happened to agree, I'm presuming because its a good solution, not because it was opposite to your own opinion. If AC disagrees with my presumption I will strike the comment.Jim Sweeney (talk)
No need to strike Jim - yes I agree with that. Anotherclown (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might well get a consensus to say anything, but it was the Ottoman Empire which took part in the Sinai and Palestine campaign and its POV to refer to it in any other way. Oh except for Ottoman Army, Ottoman soldiers, Ottoman Army soldiers. --Rskp (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish has been restored as per original style used and above discussion. As you have never tried to gain a consensus for using Ottoman in the Sinai and Palestine articles, your repeated changes are just edit warring, and disruptive. The correct forum to gain a consensus would be at WP:MILHIST, then the matter can be settled once and for all. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can count. You already have a consensus, but that does not make the use of Ottoman Empire, Ottoman Army and Ottoman soldiers, wrong. --Rskp (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you have already stated above their is a Wikipedia:Consensus to use Turkish, adding Ottoman is breaking one of Wikipedia's key principles. This is now moving away from just being disruptive can you desist. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of english sources use Turkish as they are referring to the enemy and using a derogatory term. At the time it was the Ottoman Empire. Whether there was a Turkish empire before the war and a Turkish republic after the war, is not relevant. It is inaccurate and POV to refer to the Ottoman Army as Turkish and so the POV tag has been added to this article. --Rskp (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"they are referring to the enemy and using a derogatory term". Are you quite sure of that - it's like the official history of the Western Front referring to the Germans as "the Hun". And the Australian history for one doesn't do that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read any of the above post s - how can it be POV when even the article about it uses the same term "Turkish". The only POV here is yours the term was and is widely used by historians. Its also the term used by every sourcein the article, so to change would definitely be POV. As above I suggest you take this to WPMILHIST to decide once and for all. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In connection to the unsourced statement "use Turkish as they are referring to the enemy" Lets examine the Crimean War when both sides were allies.
  • The Crimean War: British Grand Strategy Against Russia, 1853-56 uses Turks [63], Turkish [64], Turkey [65]
  • Crimea uses Turks [66],Turkish [67],Turkey [68]
  • The Crimean War uses Turks [69],Turkish [70],Turkey [71]
  • The” Ottoman Crimean War: (1853 - 1856) uses Turks [72] Turkish [73] Turkey [74]

and even a book written on a different aspect of that conflict

  • Florence Nightingale: The Crimean War uses Turks [75], Turkish [76], Turkey [77]

So ample evidence the terms Turk, Turkish, Turkey were not used in any derogatory way as they were the enemy.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I came here because of the comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I think that precise terminology should be followed in case of armed forces. In case of forces of the Ottoman Empire those forces should be referred to as Ottoman forces. Imprecise and sometimes biased derogatory term Turkish should be avoided although not all sources using Turk terminology are using it in derogatory way.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if the forces were actually made up of say Anatolian Turkish? To refer to them just as "Ottoman" all the time would be similar to describing an attack against eg the New Zealand Division as "assaulting a British force" GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Web Site Turkey in the First World War [78] where the host appears to be Turkish says "The title of this web site is “Turkey's War” although the entity was officially called “Ottoman Empire” in those years, and Modern Turkey was founded in 1923. However we will refer to Turkey and the Turkish Army in this web site due to a number of reasons. For hundreds of years the Ottoman Empire was known in Western countries simply as “Turkey” and its army as the “Turkish Army”. It is also true that during the First World War, Ottoman armed forces consisted primarily of soldiers of Turkish ethnicity, although there were also Arabs, Caucasians, Jews, Armenians, Greeks, Slavs and others fighting alongside with the Turks under the banner of the Sultan. We will talk about the "Turkish army", but honour all who have sacrificed." Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What if the forces were actually made up of say Anatolian Turkish?" - If Turkish ethnicity of the soldiers in some Ottoman units is relevant, which is almost never the case, then there is a point to refer to some units as "Turkish".
"For hundreds of years the Ottoman Empire was known in Western countries simply as “Turkey”" - Yes, that is certainly outdated terminology.
"However we will refer to Turkey and the Turkish Army in this web site..." Good point. Army of Turkey should be referred as such. Army of Ottoman Empire should be referred to as "Ottoman Army". If your statement means that you will continue to refer to Ottoman army as 'Turkish army' although you failed to gain consensus for your position then you should not seek for opinion of other editors (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not my statement but a cut and paste from an external site. And I don't see how I have failed to gain consensus for using Turkish over Ottoman or visa versa. As it stands it seems an equal split. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a statement you chose to support your position. You took it from the personal website whose author clarified that "... it is not recommended that this site be used for academic reference purposes for academic papers... [because] the site has not been submitted for formal peer review." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No your wrong, its an attempted response to the question above What if the forces were actually made up of say Anatolian Turkish? and in no way have I used it to support, as you phrase it my position. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Jim Sweeney you are wrong. During WWI it was the Ottoman Empire who deployed the Ottoman Army to fight, not Turkey and not the Turkish Army. This is not the first time you have been unable to appreciate that your position is incorrect see here [79]. Further, the "what if" senarios would be fine, if that sort of detail was available in english language sources. Please add the information, if you have the sources. --Rskp (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't believe I am wrong, as you have mentioned sources, its the sources that use Turkish. The British, Australian and New Zealand official historians all use Turkish, as do other authors in this and other time periods. Even the Germans use Turkish [File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S29571, Türkei, Dardanellen, MG-Stellung.jpg]. Every source uses Turkish, so much so that it comes under WP:COMMONNAME..."prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Your premise that Turkey/Turkish was used in a derogatory way has been proved wrong and you are unable to provide any evidence to the contrary. Even Ericksons Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War uses Turkish and even says in the preface "This book is about the Turkish Army."[80] Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an obvious misunderstanding here. This article deals with the period 1916 to 1919. During this time the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Army ruled over a great deal of territory, which in 1916 extended to the border with Egypt just to the south of Raft. Since 1299 as the Wikipedia article on the Ottoman Empire points out, and up until 1923 this is what the country was called. At the same time the British Empire was not called the United Kingdom for the same reason. There is a consensus that the correct terminology should be followed in this article and so I have been forced to add the POV tag. --Rskp (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such consensus. You are just being disruptive and why have you split discussion on this to two different sections? Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a separate section because the POV issue was not clear. Why are you against a consensus for correct terminology? --Rskp (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against consensus but then there is no clear consensus to use one term over another. Suggest this is carried on at the new section below.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to get the full quote? --Rskp (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

It appears there is some misunderstanding regarding terminology in this article.

  1. The Ottoman Empire existed for 6 centuries from 1299 to 1923, and it was clearly the Ottoman Army, which fought in World War I. The use of Turkish/Turkey is also inconsistent with all the articles which describe the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, and it is POV to call the Ottoman Empire, Turkey when describing events which took place between 1299 and 1923.
  2. The consistent naming of the yeomanry units compares unfavourably with the inconsistent, confusing names and abbreviations of the light horse units, which is also POV.--Rskp (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re 2) examples please. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1 this has all been dealt with in the Ottoman Empire/Turkey section above. Not all the S&P article use Ottoman just the ones you edit.
  • Also need some clarification re 2 just what do you mean.
  • Then on another matter did you not say on the ANI that you would not edit this article keeping the "status quo ante bellum" ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett, for examples see Ottoman Empire and Ottoman Army articles as well as almost all the Sinai and Palestine campaign articles. It was not Turkey but Ottoman Empire territory which the Anzac Mounted Division invaded on their way to Rafa. The dubious tag was added because the reference fails to mention the Ottoman Empire flourishing for six centuries from 1299 to 1923. --Rskp (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But then this article is not about the Ottoman Empire, so why should it mention that? And you re-added the POV tag for no good reason. If you read WP:POV... In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. Every English source, even German and Ottoman/Turkish sources, uses the names Turk/Turkey/Turkish for the First World War and even for periods before that as shown in the Ottoman Empire/Turkey discussion above. The only person who seems to believe it is biased is yourself and as your original point was that it was used in a derogatory way, has been proved wrong, as usual you have changed tack. As TomStar81 has asked us not to edit this article, I had hoped you would have respected the Status Quo. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting on examples re the "inconsistent, confusing names and abbreviations of the light horse units". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately its been necessary to add the POV tag because "precise terminology should be followed in the case of armed forces. Imprecise and sometimes biased derogatory term of Turkish should be avoided." [Antidiskriminator post 12:53 10 November 2013 see above]. Further the source relied on is not recommended to be used for reference purposes. [Antidiskriminator post 20:19 10 November 2013]. --Rskp (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett there are the "1st and 3rd Brigades", the "1st Brigade", the "1st and the NZ Brigades", the "2nd Brigade", the "2nd and NZ Brigade's", the "NZ Brigade", the 7th LHR", while we have the 5th Mounted Brigade always referred to in full. These light horse and mounted rifles brigades should be referred to, in a similar fashion, that is by their full names for consistency and to avoid confusion with infantry brigades. To quote Antidiskriminator, "precise terminology should be followed in the case of armed forces." As I have replaced the abbreviations with the full names on a couple of occasions, after which they have been replaced with the abbreviations, I have been forced to add the POV tag to the article. --Rskp (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not POV per Wikipedia's definition, that's just a disagreement about word choice for clarity in the text. I suspect that most of the time reference to a given brigade would be accepted as meaning the component brigade of the article's subject much like "he" in a biographical would refer to the subject unless the sentence and context showed otherwise. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • GraemeLeggett we are not just talking about a "word choice" but the names of army units and there should be some degree of precision and consistency when they are mentioned. Unless of course you want the article to be confusing? --Rskp (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish is not used in a derogatory way, but as per the sources and is suitable per WP:POV. Quoting someones post on a talk page is not WP:POLICY just an opinion. The source mentioned by Antidiskriminator has not, as you well know, been used in the article just on the talk page in response to a question. In response to the brigades. The article is about the ANZAC Mounted Division, it had 3/4 permanent brigades. In the order of battle section they are listed in full, then abbreviated in brackets - New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade (NZ Brigade). The brigades that were not permanently assigned to the division are written in full. Or in the case of the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade that has several mentions as ICCB. That being so there is no need to write out the names in full at every use. The POV tag is not supposed to be used for that, but just to make it clear your now saying the POV tag is because brigade names are abbreviated to a form you don't like. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, this "the sky is blue" issue, and so therefore does not require a consensus. The names of countries and army units require "precise terminology". --Rskp (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear the POV tag is about a clear bias against using the correct names of the Ottoman Empire, and the light horse and mounted rifles units, in a precise and consistent manner. --Rskp (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you saying about the Turkey/Ottoman issue is against policy per WP:POV widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. The brigade and regiment names its normal to use the full name on first use with an abbreviation in brackets, which is used at each mention after that. That is not a NPOV issue. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The unbalance within this article is that British Empire is correctly used to describe a region, in every instance. United Kingdom, or England are never referred to. However, while Ottoman Empire, is the correct name for the region, at the time, it has been used once at the Armistice. So according to this article, the empire only came into being in time for the Armistice. This is inconsistent and confusing for the average reader. The unbalance is also evident in the various names and abbreviations of the light horse and mounted rifles units while the 5th Mounted Brigade is accurately and consistently referred to IN EVERY INSTANCE. Until these matters are corrected the POV tag should remain. --Rskp (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are not NPOV issues - also this article is not about a region - the UK or England also has nothing to do with the article. As stated above abreviations for units is normal practice, (read your own articles, EEF for example) and again that is not an NPOV issue. You do not appear to have read WP:POV, or have failed to understand it. Read the bold text above, which is taken from the page.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do not appear to understand that using Ottoman Empire is correct, and precise for the region which, AT THE TIME included present day Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran and Iraq, Palestine and Israel. Within Wikipedia some attempt must be made to be consistent and accurate. Therefore Ottoman Empire should be consistently used. The various names and abbreviations of the light horse and mounted rifles units are confusing. These units should be referred to in every instance by their full title in the same way as the 5th Mounted Brigade. Otherwise the article is not neutral. --Rskp (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from WP:POV once again ...widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers The issue with the unit names is also not POV and readily excepted. Have you changed every use of EEF to Egyptian Expeditionary Force, in the articles your edit? This is just once again being disruptive.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is a "the sky is blue" - that is, it was the Ottoman Army and Ottoman Empire, not Turkey or the Turkish Empire which was involved in WWI. To use any other term than Ottoman, is misleading, and not neutral. Let me explain, if you were to say, refer to England instead of either the British Empire or the United Kingdom, this would also be misleading and not neutral, because in these cases you would be overlooking and discriminating against all the other regions which make up the UK and which made up the British Empire. This would not be a neutral point of view. --Rskp (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was the Ottoman Army and Ottoman Empire, not Turkey or the Turkish Empire which was involved in WWI" – fine, so you keep saying. Sources? WP:NOTBLUE if you can't provide any. Learn the difference between "common knowledge" and "what Roslyn thinks is true". Very few things in history meet the requirements of WP:BLUE, unless you'd like to argue that close to 100% of people in the world are familiar with the Ottoman people and therefore would know the difference between an Ottoman and a Turk. You'd be bloody stupid to think this; everyone knows that the sky is blue or fire burns.. how can everyone know about an empire which hasn't existed for 90 years? Hence why you're talking nonsense Roslyn, pure fiction, and need to come down to Earth.
  • "England instead of either the British Empire or the United Kingdom" – this never happens, strawman argument, waste of time making it.. there have been English armies and British armies, under the empire it was always going to be called "British" not "English" so there's no comparison can be made. The British Empire was ruled from Britain by British people. Was there ever a country called Ottoman with an Ottoman ethnic group? Isn't "Ottoman", in fact, simply a family name – Osman, whose dynasty was named after its founder who came from Anatolia, which became part of Turkey?
  • "This would not be a neutral point of view." – You obviously don't know the meaning of "neutral", as you're demanding that "Ottoman" be used yet refuse to present your sources to support this claim. Hypocrite much?
Same circular unfounded arguments being repeated again and again. Please await the conclusion of the consensus at MILHIST so that we can get this matter resolved and closed by community members, and then you won't have to waste time worrying about it any longer. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 08:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This does not deal with the lack of neutral treatment of the light horse and mounted rifles units. They have been variously referred to as the "1st and 3rd Brigades", the "1st Brigade", the "1st and the NZ Brigades", the "2nd Brigade", the "2nd and NZ Brigade's", the "NZ Brigade", the 7th LHR", while the 5th Mounted Brigade is consistently referred in full. This article will remain POV until these names are equally treated. --Rskp (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a NPOV issue but a difference of opinion between editors about how to write. Your stance has no foundation. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"will remain" – will, Roslyn? Is that by your will? When did Jimbo die and make you Lord of Wikipedia? I don't recall consensus having "will" in it. When the !vote at MILHIST is concluded this article "will" have its tag removed; it's a simple matter of community vs Roslyn's POV. Your "locked in" mentality leaves much to be desired. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 12:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise that we were on first name terms Marcus. There is a simple question of the neutrality of this article, which needs to be addressed. I'm terrabubbily sorry Marcus, that you got so upset about "will," - would 'should' have been ok? --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I didn't realise that we were on first name terms Marcus." – we're not. We're on username terms, and "Roslyn" is the first part of your username, as "Marcus" is mine. I don't live in a class or caste system so I use names as they come, I don't require special permission on how to address people; snobbery is simply wishful thinking – you'll be treated as an equal, not as royalty, by me. Don't ask for anything less. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality has nothing to do with it. 1st Australian Light Horse Brigade, 1st Light Horse Brigade, 1st LH Brigade of 1st Brigade as long as its clear what is meant. The short form (1st Brigade) follows the full name in the OOB section as is standard practice. Then 1st Brigade, 2nd Brigade, NZ Brigade is used for every mention of those brigades there after. Its not hard to follow, especially as they are the only 1st, 2nd and New Zealand brigades in the article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the consensus reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Arbitrary break, which I closed as an uninvolved MILHIST coord, I have removed the NPOV tag from the article. Cdtew (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brigades[edit]

The lede includes

On establishment it consisted of five brigades: three Australian light horse, one New Zealand rifles and a British horse artillery brigade.

and later talks about the Division being

reduced to two Australian, one New Zealand and one British (artillery) brigade

This strikes me as odd: equating a RHA Brigade - equivalent to a regiment - with a three regiment brigade does not seem right. It gives an incorrect impression of the strength of the Division. Hamish59 (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However it is the correct term for the artillery formation of the period. Also the three regiments dismounted strengh was only the same as a First World War infantry battalion. The lede is just an overview, the details are covered in the body of the article. Any suggestions to imporve uderstanding. How about an artillery brigade of four batteries ?Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, brigade is the correct term for a British artillery formation in that period. That is not the problem. The issue is describing the Division as a 5 brigade formation which is, imo, misleading because dismounted or not, a LH Brigade was two to three times the size of a RHA brigade. Would anyone describe, say, 1st Division (Australia) as a 7 brigade formation - 3 infantry brigades and 4 field artillery brigades?
My suggestion for improvement: On establishment it consisted of four brigades: three Australian light horse and one New Zealand mounted rifles. Hamish59 (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that, can you change the wording as I have agreed not to edit here, until a dispute is resolved. Jim Sweeney (talk)
OK. Hamish59 (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Horse Artillery[edit]

While I would have expected the RHA batteries to have 13-pounders, same as the RHA brigades on the Western Front. The only reference for the size of gun, I have found, is Powles The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine page.12 These batteries were at this time armed with 18 pounders. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add that as a cite? I am going to plough through Becke / Perry and Frederick to see if I can find anything. Hamish59 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Farndale says 18 pounders initially (e.g. 1st Gaza), replaced with 13 pounders later. I will need to check in detail. Hamish59 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"On establishment the division had been supplied with 18–pounder artillery guns in 1916. In September 1917 they were reduced to 13-pounder guns, making the division "even more capable," according to Erickson."[24][25][26] See [81] For photographs of the guns, see [82]. All this information has now been cut from the article. --Rskp (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it has not, it is and always has been, in the formation history section.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subheading[edit]

Etymology relates to the history of a word, where as the information in this subsection is a list of the different names, the division has been called. I suggest the subheading be changed to something more easily understood like "Variations of division's names" to clarify why the subsection is included in the article. What do other editors think? --Rskp (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While reinstating "Etymology" here [83] Jim Sweeney cut "After serving dismounted in ANZAC during the Gallipoli campaign, the surviving Australian light horse and New Zealand mounted riflemen returned to Egypt.{cite web|accessdate=14 October 2013|publisher=Australian War Memorial|title=ANZAC Acronym|url=http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/anzac/acronym/}"

Also cut was the information that the abbreviation "A. & N. Z. Mounted Division" appears in the divisional war diary {cite web|publisher=Australian War Memorial|title=General Staff Headquarters ANZAC Mounted Division Appendix E1/17|url=http://static.awm.gov.au/images/collection/bundled/RCDIG1013373.pdf} and that the official Australian and New Zealand campaign histories both refer to the Anzac Mounted Division.{cite web|accessdate=29 October 2013|publisher=Australian War Memorial|title=Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918; Volume VII – The Australian Imperial Force in Sinai and Palestine, 1914–1918 (10th edition, 1941) Contents page|url=http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/AWMOHWW1/AIF/Vol7/} {cite web|accessdate=24 November 2013|publisher=Victoria University of Wellington Library|title=The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine|url=http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH1-Sina.html}

This is valuable information about the service of the men, immediately before they formed the division, which also indicates why "Anzac" appears in the name of the division. Also it shows the use of the abbreviated form in use in the divisional war diary, and indicates what the Australian and New Zealand official histories called the division. It should be reinstated. --Rskp (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its all covered on the linked article, no need for duplication.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You insisted on the all capitals version of the division's name for this article, when I attempted to change it to the noun, yet you cut all references to the Australian light horse and New Zealand mounted riflemen serving in ANZAC during the Gallipoli campaign before they formed the division. This information needs to be in this article to clearly substantiate why the men cared about the division's name, "We of the 3rd Brigade rather resented the change, as we lost the old name of Anzac." [Bostock, Harry P. (1982). The Great Ride: The Diary of a Light Horse Brigade Scout, World War 1. Perth: Artlook Books p. 62] and why the Australian and New Zealand official histories of the campaign refer to the division as the Anzac Mounted Division, while the official British history refers to the official name and its abbreviation. But you cut all this including the Bostock quote. Why don't you want this notable information in this article? --Rskp (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gallipoli campaign[edit]

The division never served in the Gallipoli campaign so to mention it in the lead is way off focus. Can you self revert or provide a reason it should be there. Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but didn't the men serve at Gallipoli as part of ANZAC before transferring to I ANZAC? --Rskp (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ and current consensus[edit]

"Current consensus is that the terms should be left as they are." says FAQ added with this edit (diff). I think that link to such consensus should be provided.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battles - larger forces[edit]

Why are links to the battles the division took part in, being cut from subsection 4 "Battles"? Why is it not possible to mention the larger forces the division was part of, in the info box? --Rskp (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even three notable battles the division took part in during the Sinai and Palestine campaign have now been cut from the infobox here [84]. How can readers gain any idea of what operations this division was involved in if none of the battles are in the infobox? --Rskp (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes them any more notable, then the others, this section is not for battles. That why there is a link to the section.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say that the battles section of the infobox is not for battles? See the guide to the use of the template which encourages notable battles to be included in the battles section.

What is notable about Romani is that in 1916 it stopped a large scale attempt to capture/damage the extremely important British supply line through the Suez Canal. The pursuit which followed saw the EEF eventually recapture the Sinai and advance to the edge of Ottoman Empire territory, in Palestine.

What is notable about the Southern Palestine Offensive is that in 1917 this series of 8 battles resulted in the EEF advancing from the southern edge of Palestine to capture about 50 miles of Ottoman Empire territory, Beersheba, Jaffa and the Holy City of Jerusalem. This was an epoch-making change.

What is notable about the Battle of Megiddo is that in 1918 this series of 10 battles resulted in the capture of another 50 miles or so of Ottoman Empire territory, the destruction of the 8th Ottoman armies, forced the retreat of the 7th Ottoman army commanded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, while Chaytor's Force captured most of the 4th Army. This notable and brilliant victory opened the way for the subsequent pursuit of what remained of the 4th Ottoman army to Damascus and the 7th Ottoman army to Aleppo, when another 50 or 100 miles of Ottoman territory was captured.

If you don't know this stuff, Jim Sweeney what are you doing writing the extensive service histories for this division and Desert Mounted Corps? --Rskp (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian cut[edit]

The identification of the commander of Eastern Force has been cut here, [85] supposedly because "natinality [sic] has no bearing on article." Certainly the division did not serve in Canada, but readers may be interested to know this detail. --Rskp (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If readers are that interested to find out where he came from they have only to click on the link. His nationality has no bearing on this article or even his decisions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is the only Canadian, known to have taken part in the campaign. A promised Canadian bridging train (I think) didn't arrive, or arrived too late to be used. That makes it notable information, don't you think? --Rskp (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From reading his article and a source given in it, he seems to have been an example of an "Imperial soldier" serving most anywhere but in Canada. Holding commissions in the British Army, his origins don't seem to be relevant within the context of this article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership issues[edit]

While claiming POV the subsection "Variations in division's name" has been changed back to the incomprehensible "Etymology" as this section is not about the history of a word but about the various names the division has been called in the sources. [86] While the editor is insistent on using the ANZAC acronym in the mounted division's name, in this same edit they have cut any mention of the men who formed the division, having served in ANZAC the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps during the Gallipoli campaign. Also cut is information about the use of some of the different names, for example in the war diaries of the division. Cut also is mention that both the Australian and New Zealand official histories of the campaign use the noun "Anzac Mounted Division." Even the citation to the New Zealand official history has been cut, and the citation for the Gallipoli campaign service has also been cut in the same edit. --Rskp (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered above Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which subsection of this extensive talk page are you referring to? --Rskp (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article still disputed[edit]

See requested moves already discussed more than once

The official name is in fact the "Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division" which has been abbreviated to "A & NZ Mounted Division" in the British official history of the campaign and at the top of each page of the war diaries. Within the war diaries tend to block capital all names of places etc. hence the Australian War Memorial using the block capitals form of the noun for the name of the mounted division. The trouble with this block capitals form is that it can easily be confused with the ANZAC, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which served during the Gallipoli Campaign. It was the surviving Australian light horsemen and most of the New Zealand mounted riflemen (one New Zealand regiment ended up on the Western Front) who formed the Anzac Mounted Division in early 1916, along with reinforcements. Hence the unofficial name of the division which is and was widely used, including one trooper from the 3rd Light Horse Brigade who lamented the loss of the "Anzac Mounted Division" name, when the Imperial Mounted Division was formed and his brigade transferred to it in 1917. "We of the 3rd Brigade rather resented the change, as we lost the old name of Anzac." [Bostock, Harry P. (1982). The Great Ride: The Diary of a Light Horse Brigade Scout, World War 1. Perth: Artlook Books p. 62]

Within Wikipedia the use of the official name would be unwieldy and create confusion with the Australian Mounted Division, which the Imperial Mounted Division became a few months later. Within the Desert Mounted Corps there were three divisions, the oldest, the Anzac Mounted Division, then the Australian Mounted Division and the youngest, the Yeomanry Mounted Division. For clarity and consistency with the names of the divisions which make up the mounted corps the noun is recognisable, natural, precise, consise and consistent. See Wikipedia:Article titles. --Rskp (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orientation[edit]

Es Salt is not north of Amman. The claim that it is needs to be corrected. --Rskp (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old sources[edit]

The extensive "Service history" subsection relies, almost exclusively on two very old sources, published in 1922 and 1923. This has resulted in a very out of date view of the division's campaign. --Rskp (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the official histories have not been replaced, but I see you helped by adding sources only 85 years old. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? --Rskp (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign boxes cut[edit]

The Sinai and Palestine campaign and the World War I campaign boxes which were recently added to this article have been cut, claiming "not a campaign or theatre of wwi." That is true, but this article describes a division which operated IN the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I. Why should these campaign boxes not be part of the article? --Rskp (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Campaign refer to the battles, not to the units involved in them, I think. Hamish59 (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the usual use of campaign boxes is as navigation boxes between battles within campaigns. Navigating between related units is a different thing - eg this navbox Template:British_Army_Infantry_Regiments. Units can be linked to battles/campaigns - aside from through the article text itself - by categories.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hamish59, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. This is not about the battle section of the infobox, but the two campaign boxes which have recently been cut. GraemeLeggett, as this division only served in the Sinai and Palestine campaign of ww1, would it not be useful for general readers to be able to orientate themselves by referring to these campaign boxes, even if they don't use them for navigation? --Rskp (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking runs like this: Navboxes and sidebars are for moving between related articles - they are an alternative to a large number of entries in the "See also" section. "See also" sections are not supposed to have duplications of links already included in the text. Any article having a given navbox should also exist as a link in the navbox.
There is a guideline on the subject: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Essentially though, the article text should cover the subject and its place within the campaign, and a "see also", "further" or "main" link to an overview of the campaigns would be the appropriate way to direct the reader to the broader picture. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. As I'm not as well informed about these things, and I suspect the general readers are not either, can you check the article to make sure that these campaign templates would be unnecessary? --Rskp (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent ownership issues[edit]

It is apparent that there are serious ownership issues with the edits of Jim Sweeney which have cut relevant, notable information from the article.

[87] cut description of the Australians and New Zealanders returning after serving dismounted in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) during the Gallipoli campaign, claiming "not accurate see talk - not all the divisions manpower fought at Gallipoli - even the Australian and New Zealand contingent had few who had taken part in fighting at Gallipoli"

[88] cut ANZAC claiming "acronym not needed as not repeated and not needed where placed after division" *Mention of the service by the light horse and mounted rifle brigades in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, ANZAC, remains cut

[89] cut mention of and link to Battle of the Nek, from service by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Light Horse. Also cut New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade service on Gallipoli, claiming "tighten wording"

[90] cut Australia and New Zealand from the country section of the infobox, claiming Australia and New Zealand part of the British Empire, and [91] cut Post War from list of commanders, claiming better layout - no need for distinction

[92] cut identification of 4th Light Horse Brigade as part of Australian Mounted Division, claiming "off focus"

[93] cut link to First Battle of Amman claiming "Fork article removed details already included in main article under heading"

[94] cut link to Third Transjordan attack claiming "easter egg removed"

[95] cut photo of the first commander, the light horse in Egypt, while only claiming a template was added, and [96] cut photo of Australian light horsemen with rifles over their shoulders, claiming "remove image as text squeezed"

Information about the change of in the size of the artillery and photographs have also been cut from the Order of battle. "On establishment the division had been supplied with 18–pounder artillery guns in 1916. In September 1917 they were reduced to 13-pounder guns, making the division "even more capable," according to Erickson."[24][25][26]" See [97]

When one editor keeps such tight hold on an article while it is being developed, the wider Wikipedia community and readers are the poorer. --Rskp (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gullett p. 301[edit]

"Dobell's plan for the second battle required his infantry to assault Gaza itself while the mounted forces would operate on their right flank, to force the Turkish troops towards Beersheba, hinder the movement of reinforcements from there to Gaza, and prepare to pursue any retreating Turkish forces." [Gullett, p.301] "to force the Turkish troops towards Beersheba" appears not to make sense, as my understanding was that the mounted units were to cover the infantry's right flank and take advantage of any break in the defenders' line. --Rskp (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious reference[edit]

The division's next operation was a raid on Amman, thirty miles (48 km) east-north-east of Jericho, by the division, with the ICCB attached, supported by the 60th (London) Division. [Powles, p.191]

However page 191 reads: "Eventually the Brigade was accommodated in the olive groves between Bethlehem and the village of Beit Jala, where shelter from the cold wet winds was obtained. Here the Brigade remained until the 20th, again making use of every available hour by sending into Bethlehem and Jerusalem parties sight seeing.

But Jerusalem in winter, with rain, sleet and wind, is not the city of our books or of our dreams, and much more enjoyable visits were paid in after days during the sojourn of the Brigade in the Jordan Valley. On the 20th the Brigade marched down the main Jericho road after dark and bivouacked in the Wilderness close to Talaat ed Dumm—the Good Samaritan's Inn.

Here, among the rocky hills, which gave much discomfort to the horses, the next three days were passed, owing to the heavy rains interfering with the crossing of the Jordan. Every" [page ends] --Rskp (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which version are you working from ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since Rksp is (currently) topic banned, perhaps someone else can address this issue? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen this its page 190 will change. Mind anyone checking the above would have seen that as its the start ofthe Amman raid chapter. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ANZAC_Mounted_Division/Archive_1&oldid=1147976994"