Talk:Battle of Romani

Town of Romani?

Currently Romani is a disambig that doesn't even mention a town of such a name...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle description

There is an unsourced description of the battle which I would like to edit to incorporate Powles view. Are there any disagreements to this project?--RoslynSKP (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Names

The British Army in the First World War did not use infantry in its formation names. Its 53rd (Welsh) Division not 53rd (Welsh) Infantry Division. Brigades had a unique name in most cases 126th (East Lancashire) Brigade , not 126th Infantry Brigade. Those without a unique name just used 1st Brigade etc. Persons names should be in full when first used Winston Spencer Churchill not W.S. Churchill for example. The ANZAC Mounted Division is an acronym Anzac is wrong, ANZAC should be used or its full name Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. The British Empire is used throughout the article, and in the info box, so there is no need to list the parts of the empire involved, note the same is never applied to the Ottoman/German side of the inf box. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. ANZAC is more correct. Anotherclown (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps ANZAC existed from the beginning of the war until after the Gallipoli campaign when it was broken up. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Light Horse Brigades formed a part of the ANZAC and when they later formed the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division the men and a number of historians referred to the division as the Anzac Mounted Division, in memory of the Gallipoli campaign, or as the A. & N. Z. Mounted Division by some historians. ANZAC is in this case not an acronym and its use is wrong. --Rskp (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

ANZAC is the correct name used by the Australian War Memorial, see here [1] and here [2]

The ANZAC Acronym

ANZAC is the acronym formed from the initial letters of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, the formation into which Australian and New Zealand soldiers were grouped in Egypt prior to the landing at Gallipoli in April 1915.

First written as A. & N. Z. Army Corps, it soon became A. N. Z. A. C. and the new word was so obvious that the full stops were omitted. The word was initially used to refer to the cove where the Australians and New Zealanders landed and soon after, to the men themselves. An ANZAC was a man who was at the Landing and who fought at Gallipoli, but later it came to mean any Australian or New Zealand soldier of the First World War. An ANZAC who served at Gallipoli was given an A badge which was attached to his colour patch.

Following the allied withdrawal from Gallipoli and the expansion of Australian and New Zealand forces in Egypt early in 1916, the ANZAC was split into two new formations called I ANZAC Corps and II ANZAC Corps – despite the repetition of the word Corps in their name. These formations, I ANZAC Corps comprising three Australian divisions and II ANZAC Corps made up of the 4th and 5th Australian divisions and the New Zealand Division, were transferred to France and fought on the Western Front until 1917, when the five Australian formations were grouped into a single Australian Corps. Also in March 1916, the ANZAC Mounted Division was formed from three Australian Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade for service in Sinai and Palestine. In 1916 – 1917 a joint signals unit, the 1st (ANZAC) Wireless Signal Squadron, operated with the British expeditionary force in Mesopotamia (now Iraq). Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Added to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#ANZAC for more discussion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division was formed in 1916 not the ANZAC. The men called it Anzac, so did military historians like Hill, Wavell, Bostock et al. Fall calls it the A. and N. Z. Mounted Division. After the first mention of the full name of the division and the initials 'Anzac' not ANZAC which corps did not fight in the Defence of the Suez Canal, Defence of Egypt or the Sinai and Palestine Campaigns. --Rskp (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to get this clear you are saying the Australian War Memorial content copied above is wrong? Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

POV

I have a number of concerns about the neutrality of this article, which although relatively minor have been reverted when I have attempted to fix them myself, and as such remain an issue IMO. Specifically:

Infobox lists the event as being "Part of The Defence of the Suez Canal and the Defence of Egypt First World War". Clearly only the British called the campaign this as their is no way the Germans or the Turkish would have used such terminology. I have changed this to Sinai and Palestine campaign as this is the accepted name for the campaign on wikipedia, however this was reverted here [3] by User:RoslynSKP).

The Battle of Romani formed part of the Defence of the Suez Canal and the Defence of Egypt campaigns. This is what these campaigns have been known as, in the English language, for the last 90 years or so. This is the English language Wikipedia after all. I do not read German or Turkish, and as the English language sources I used to edit this article to GA standard, do not mention a German or Turkish equivalent, I am unable to give an alternative title to this campaign, which was not part of the Sinai and Palestine campaign; it preceded the Sinai and Palestine campaign. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. The Battle of Romani formed part of the British Defence of the Suez Canal and the Defence of Egypt campaigns. Did the Turks or the Germans call it this? I doubt it. Wikipedia uses Sinai and Palestine campaign, why cant you? Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Anotherclown you are being rude. You need to apologise. So because Wikipedia uses Sinai and Palestine campaign what? Aren't wiki editors allowed to improve Wikipedia? --Rskp (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Its not an improvement it is against community consensus and it is British and Australian POV. Anotherclown (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead uses terms such as enemy: "From 20 July until the battle began, the Australian 1st and 2nd Light Horse Brigades took turns pushing forward and clashing with the advancing enemy column." Clear British/Australian POV which could easily be avoided by removing the term, as I have previously done (reverted here [4] by User:RoslynSKP).

Given the context of the sentence 'enemy' seemed not to be a loaded term. Throughout the article the enemy force is more often than not identified as German and Ottoman. If it is a problem, why was it not picked up during the GA process? --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Also rubbish. How can one side be referred to as the "enemy" in a neutral article? Clearly the Turks and Germans didn't call themselves the enemy. This is British/Australian POV. It is easily fixed by removing the word entirely; however, some how that was controversial enough for you to repeatedly revert it. I agree the term can be used in the right context, but that is not how it is used here. So what if the issue wasn't raised in the GA review? Its been raised now - deal with it. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• So its also rubbish that 'enemy' was accepted for GA? Yes, I am perfectly willing to change this to Ottoman and German advance. No need to be so rude though. --Rskp (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • So you finally accepted this point. Why then did we need to go through the pain of you reverting this minor change repeatedly in the first place? Anotherclown (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As any change I make to this article seems to get reverted I invite User:RoslynSKP to rectify these issues. Anotherclown (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am not allowed to change it. --Rskp (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I use 'Anzac' because 'ANZAC' really only refers to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which was in existence before and during the Gallipoli campaign. The 1st and 2nd and the 3rd Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade (from memory) served before and on Gallipoli in ANZAC and afterwards these light horse brigades formed the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division in April 1916. The light horsemen referred to the mounted division as the 'Anzac Mounted Division' although its official name is the 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division'. This division has been referred to as the 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division', as the 'A. and N. Z. Mounted Division', and as the 'Anzac Mounted Division' in the literature. I can't recall seeing the 'ANZAC Mounted Division' but note ANZAC is used in the Wikipedia article name which describes the division. Anzac Mounted Division links to this article and is not wrong or incorrect. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. The article has now been amended by another user to deal with these concerns, so this would appear to have been resolved unless it is reverted yet again. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it got reverted yet again. Rskp - I've invited you to discuss this and you have not, you simply reverted again. That hardly seems like collaborative behaviour. Anotherclown (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of minor stylistic changes made by Anotherclown. These include adding hyphens, cutting brackets and etc. There is nothing wrong with counterattack as one word and sand cart as two words is misleading. The term is sandcart. I cut all the red links because there were so many and they made the article look like it was having major problems. There is even a red link in the introduction to the 3rd Ottoman Infantry Division which is not notable. There is another red link in the prelude to the 3rd (Anatolian) Infantry Division. There is a functioning link to the Ottoman 4th Army which I have recently rediscovered and would add, given the opportunity. The red links to the 6th, 7th, 11th LHR and to all the infantry brigades, are only necessary if the editor is planning to write all these articles in the near future as they are even less notable than the 3rd Ottoman Inf Div. Having recently come across a 'clean up red links' template I would add it to this article if I could. Cutting references to 'infantry' units is against the interests of the article which has been written to GA standard with the general reader in mind. Can this article please revert so that the general reader will have a chance of reading this material?--Rskp (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"There are a number of minor stylistic changes made by Anotherclown. These include adding hyphens, cutting brackets and etc. There is nothing wrong with counterattack as one word and sand cart as two words is misleading. The term is sandcart." Excuse me Roslyn? I didn't make any of these edits - get your facts straight. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See above section infantry is historically wrong they did not use the term. Red links are encouraged to assist in article creation. The 3rd Ottoman Infantry Division and the 3rd (Anatolian) Infantry Division would seem to be the same thing. Ther are way to many notes in brackets in the text. They should be changed to improve the flow of the text, most of them only repeat infomation provided earlier. If using an acronym it should be in capitals ANZAC, if not use the full term Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. The campain is the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I or North African theatre (World War I) or the Sinia and Palestine campaign not Part of The Defence of the Suez Canal and the Defence of Egypt First World War which has obvious POV. Last as you stated its only at GA standard not the finished article and can be improved . Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is 'they' what are your references. The trouble is that you are not improving this article and refuse to acknowledge the sources used in this article. Please stop your destructive edits. --Rskp (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a web link to the Long Long Trail a proven reliable source for Wikipedia see the divisions and brigades correct titles [5] Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making small changes to the style of this article as you have not written it and in doing so you are moving away from the sources I used to do this work. Thanks for the reference. It looks to be a very good web site which requests users to cite it. Could you please go though and add this citation to each and every unit name you have edited using this source? You will then be making a substantial positive impact on all these articles. --Rskp (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The small changes adding correct unit names etc do not effect the sources. WP:OWN again it does not matter that I or anyone else have not written this article, anyone can edit Wikipedia. There is no need to cite the unit names, unless they are in dispute, and would be WP:OVERCITE. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

When these unit names have not been mentioned in any of the sources used to edit this article to GA standard, its necessary to identify where these names came from. --Rskp (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

These small changes to style and words do not reflect the sources used to edit this article. The unit names you have added do not appear in any of those sources so I think it would be good practice to site your sources when you edit a page. Or do you want to hide this source? --Rskp (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Roslyn. Regardless of the style used in "your sources" we need to comply with Wikipedia's style rules, the WP:MOS and WP:MILMOS. Equally a lot of "your sources" are out of date and do not reflect modern usage or academic conventions. This is exactly why other editors are required to assist with these articles and these points have been raised with you on a number of occasions, usually with little success. I recall an A class review a while ago that I participated in that discussed many of these same points. I continue to be concerned with your lack of co-operation with other editors. If you don't want other people editing your work then it needs to be submitted to another forum. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Anotherclown my editor name is Rskp. I can get your editor name correct, why can't you? Please use my correct editor name in future. What a laugh, you can't be serious 'out of date sources' that is the funniest thing I have seen. And please do tell us all what are your up to date sources? Who are you to lecture me? --Rskp (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, clearly you are the expert and we lesser editors know nothing and should not be allowed to edit your article. Really this is one of the worst cases of WP:OWN I've come across. Who am I... who are you? At least you're starting to lighten up a bit though, I mean pretending to get all offended about your name... hilarity prevails! Anotherclown (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• BTW I've now added the POV tag because the article's infobox has been changed back to "Part of The Defence of the Suez Canal and Defence of Egypt campaigns First World War". As I said above only the British called it this, wikipedia uses the more neutral Sinai and Palestine campaign. If other editors disagree and a consensus is formed then I am happy to remove it, however until then, or until my concern are resolved, it stays. Anotherclown (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • At this point in time this has been resolved by Jim using Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, which seems like a reasonable compromise to me. As such I will remove the POV template, at least until this gets reverted too. Anotherclown (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks

Hello all. There is currently a red link to the 4th Ottoman Army. IMO, this could be linked to Fourth Army (Ottoman Empire). For what it is worth, IMO, there is nothing wrong with red links, so long as they are to notable topics. Units such as the Australian light horse regiments are notable, IMO, because of the coverage they have received. For instance, there are full WWI histories of them available here: [6]; these, along with a book or two, would allow for a decent article to be written on them, thus making them notable. I would hazard that divisional sized organisations in the Ottoman Army would also be notable, although probably their coverage in English would not be as extensive. At the end of the day, though, it is not necessarily the size of a unit that determines notability, but in fact the level of sourcing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, but I'm not the one that seems to need to be convinced. Redlinks are accepted by community consensus, yet any attempt to add them here gets reverted. Anotherclown (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know there is a functioning link to the 4th Army - see above. Yes, notability and verification are two criteria for making red links. Another is the likelihood of articles being written about for these links in the near future. So, are the editors who are so keen on red links, likely to get busy and write some articles, or what? If not cut the red links. In any case there are too many red links on this article and they detract from its GA status. I note these red links have been added after the GA process. Editors are encouraged to improve the article further, not diminish it. There is even a red link in the introduction - that is absolutely wrong.--Rskp (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

Just to jump in - and please note that I'm saying this as an uninvolved admin - could I suggest that everyone involved in this series of disputes steps away from articles on this theater of World War I for a few days? (for instance, until this Friday). I'm seeing several very good editors at each other's throats over these disagreements, and it's not doing anyone any good (Jim and Rskp, you could have been blocked for the edit war which was going on here before the page was protected). I'd also suggest that rather than thrash out the (roughly) same set of issues on several articles that you start a centralised discussion at WT:MILHIST or through a request for comment. But a break from the disagreement would be a good first step. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of a discussion anymore - indeed there never was one anyway. This isn't a content dispute - the bulk of the edits have been about minor issues of style (i.e redlinks, hypthens, the presentation of unit names, etc). Hell even a bot was reverted twice for inserting date maintenance tags. What is the value in discussing every single full stop? This just seems like a way of one editor preventing others from working on these articles. Equally when I have raised valid concerns regarding POV they get ignored or reverted. Anotherclown (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am very happy to have editors work on pages I have been involved with if they are doing so on the basis of their own research to improve the article. This is tremendously valuable to all. But these edits have been by people who clearly don't know the area well, and so they are making edits which are nit picking impositions of their own styles and making mistakes along the way.

• They are not improving the article by adding names of units, which have not been mentioned in the sources used to edit the article, if they are not prepared to add their sources.

• Cutting 'infantry' from the infantry units involved in this, and other 'all arms' engagements, is very wrong as it gives a slanted view of the battle to the general reader who won't be able to recognise infantry regiments or brigades or divisions from the mounted ones.

Where there has been substance or value in their edits I have welcomed their contributions. But where there is no substance or value, I have not and will not. So many red links detract from this article, they do not improve it. --Rskp (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So to summarise you'll decide which edits are valuable and only then you'll let other editors work on your article? WP:OWN as before? Anotherclown (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Light Horse Brigade War Diaries

Currently the bibliography lists the fol:

• "1st Light Horse Brigade War Diary". First World War Diaries AWM4, 10-1-25. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. August 1916.
• "2nd Light Horse Brigade War Diary". First World War Diaries AWM4, 10-2-19. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. August 1916.
• "3rd Light Horse Brigade War Diary". First World War Diaries AWM4, 10-3-15. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. April 1916.
• "5th Light Horse Regiment War Diary". First World War Diaries AWM4, 10-10-20. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. August 1916.

However as near as I can tell only "3rd LHB War Diary 10 April 1916 AWM 4,10/3/15" is used as an inline citation (footnote 9). As such the rest should be removed to a "Further reading" section. Anotherclown (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done I've now done this myself. Anotherclown (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Out of date and missing sources

As above I have expressed concern about the use of out of date sources, I therefore summarise my concerns as such:

• The bulk of the sources used include:
  • Battles Nomenclature Committee (1921)
  • Cutlack, F.M. (1941)
  • Downes, R. M.; A. G. Butler (1938)
  • Falls, Cyril; G. MacMunn (1930)
  • Gullett, Henry (1941)
  • Hill, A. J. (1978)
  • Keogh, E. G.; Joan Graham (1955)
  • Moore, A. Briscoe (1920)
  • Powles, C. Guy; A. Wilkie (1922)
  • Preston, R. M. P. (1921)
  • Bostock, Harry P. (1982)
  • Out of 151 citations, these make up approx 127 citations, or 84%.

• This is balanced by some more recent sources, including:
  • Bou, Jean (2010)
  • Bruce, Anthony (2002)
  • Carver, Michael, Field Marshal Lord (2003)
  • Erickson, Edward J. (2001)
  • Kinloch, Terry (2007)
  • Pugsley, Christopher (2004)
  • Woodward, David R. (2006)
• Yet these more contemporary sources make up just 16% of sources and often appear to have been added as "padding".

While I agree that a number of the older sources are important works in the field, particularly the official histories, the overall age of the bulk of the sources relied upon indicates to me that the article is unlikely to reflect the body of research currently available, which is one of the key GA criteria. Indeed many are 70 to 90 years old, and as a consequence I am left to draw the conclusion that more recent sources really should be more thoroughly consulted. Anotherclown (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation errors

There appear to be a number of errors in the citation used:

• Short citations refer to "Bou 2009", but the long citations use 2010.
• "Bowman–Manifold 1923, p. 21" is listed as a short citation but has no long citation.
• "Wavell 1968, pp. 43–5" is listed as a short citation but has no long citation.

Unless I missed something these need to be added to the Bibliography/corrected. Anotherclown (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. All fixed.--Rskp (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

ANZAC Mounted Division

Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division has been used to prevent edit war between ANZAC and Anzac. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If interested the Australian War Memorial does use ANZAC [7] Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems logical to me. Anotherclown (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But its not accurate the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps did not operate in the Sinai and Palestine campaigns and this corps was not formed into a mounted division, although some light horse brigades served in both. --Rskp (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is accurate as its the name for the division, and has nothing to do with the separate corps. Or are you now saying the Australian War Memorial have their facts wrong. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, 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 1982 p.62] None of these published sources use ANZAC. --Rskp (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Structure and focus - what is this article really about?

Another concern that I have about this article is its lack of focus. Indeed while it purports to be about the Battle of Romani (4–5 August 1916), it seems to cover significantly more ground that this. Indeed approxiamately half of the article deals with events that occurred on 5–12 August. Whilst these events are certainly relevant, they should really be covered in far less detail by being condensed and moved into the aftermath section per WP:MILMOS/C. If they are sufficiently notable a parent article could be started to cover this period in detail.

An examination of the article structure might illustrate the point:

1 Background
2 Prelude

2.1 German and Ottoman force

2.2 British forces

2.3 Development of defensive positions

2.4 Light Horse patrols before the battle

2.5 Plans

3 Battle on 4 August

3.1 Reinforcements

3.2 Mount Royston counter attack

4 Battle on 5 August

4.1 British capture Wellington Ridge

4.2 British advance on Ottoman rearguard at Katia

5 Chauvel's force advance on Ottoman rearguards

5.1 Advance towards Oghratina – 6 August

5.2 Oghratina entered on 7 August

5.3 Debabis occupied on 8 August

6 Action of Bir el Abd – 9 to 12 August

6.1 Attack on 9 August

6.2 Strong patrols – 10 August

6.3 Planned attack – 12 August

6.4 Casualties

7 Aftermath

7.1 Some criticisms

7.2 Battle honours

IMO sections 5 and 6 really do not belong in the "Battle" section at all as they occurred, yet they have been treated as though they were apart of it. As such I have to question if it really meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria number 3: Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Anotherclown (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

The following was inserted in this article - {{clarify|Both brigades were in the 18th (Eastern) Division and only served in France. ANSWER: Please check your source. Infantry in the 53rd and 54th Divisions attacked Gaza in March 1917 see [[First Battle of Gaza]] Falls states these machine gun companies were in Egypt at this time. What is your reference? - the clarification is the numbers given for the brigades - not the machine gun companies |date=December 2011}} Yes, I understand that its the 53rd and 54th Divisions which you dispute being in the Sinai and Palestine. This seems a clash of sources. But cutting the reference to the 53rd and 54th Infantry Brigades means the article has been degraded by cutting valid verifiable information. [8] The reference used to include the 53rd and 54th Divisions is Falls 1930 Vol. 1 page 181. I will be reinserting mention of these two divisions while waiting to hear what sources place them on the western front for the entire war.--Rskp (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The text did not say divisions there is no dispute they served in the theatre - 160th and 161st Machine Gun Companies of the 53rd and 54th Infantry Brigades. -I have changed it to the correct brigades 160th and 161st. Machine-gun companies were named after the brigade they served in 161st Machine Gun Company was in the 161st (Essex) Brigade Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

An error had obviously crept in here its the 53rd and 54th Divisions's 160th and 161st machine gun companies. --Rskp (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Defence of the Suez Canal and Defence of Egypt campaigns First World War

This is the official name given to the campaign by the British Parliament some 90 years ago. Since then this campaign has been known by those names. How can that be POV? Is the huge memorial near Ismailia on the Suez Canal to those who fought in the Defence of the Suez Canal campaign POV? Anotherclown please recognise an official source is not POV - this is the English language Wikipedia after all.--Rskp (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Read what you have written the British name for the campaign so it's British POV. The Middle Eastern theatre of World War I is neutral no Pov and it's what we call the theatre of war. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There were two sides fighting this battle the German, Austrian and Ottomans on one side and the British Empire on the other. This is the english language Wikipedia, how can it be POV to give the official name of the campaign which was assigned by the Battles Nomenclature Committee 90 years ago and presented to the British Parliament and approved by the Army Council. This is not the German Wikipedia, or the Austrian Wikipedia or the Ottoman Wikipedia afterall. How can you think its POV its official parlance by one of the major combatants. --Rskp (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Its the English Wikipedia, but that does not meant its English POV see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view did the Central Powers call it the Part of The Defence of the Suez Canal and Defence of Egypt campaigns. The Imperial War Museum uses THE CAMPAIGN IN EGYPT AND PALESTINE 1914 - 1918 [9] Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Germans called it Offensive zur Eroberung des Suezkanals - Offensive to the conquest of the Suez canal. The Turkish call it the İkinci Kanal Harekâtı - Second Canal Operation.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've just added these names. --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok so now we have "Part of Sinai and Palestine Campaign also known as the; Offensive zur Eroberung des Suezkanals (German); İkinci Kanal Harekâtı (Turkish)" in the infobox, which is definately better than what you had previously which we have now clearly established was reflective of British POV. However, the issue I see here now is twofold: one is that there is now too much unneccesary infomation in the infobox and two that most people on English wikipedia cannot read German or Turkish. IMO the German and Turkish names for the Sinai and Palestine campaign should definately be included in the parent article if they are not already (but including their English translation per the WP:MOS). It is my assertion that there really is no need for them here, as the focus of this article is just a battle of that campaign not the campaign itself. The infobox for this article can just say Sinai and Palestine campaign or Middle Eastern theatre of World War I as either would be acceptable for NPOV. Now if we know the German and Turkish names for the Battle of Romani then they should definately be included here. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of Romani occurred before the Sinai and Palestine campaigns began. So claiming it as part of that campaign is inaccurate. --Rskp (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You wrote it was the start of that campaign, its also it the campaign template box ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Rskp. Happy to take your word on that as I don't have a detailed knowledge of the campaign and I'm rapidly running out of energy going around in circles. Regardless, as Jim has pointed out if this is indeed an error it was yours in the first place and you will need to reword the article and the campaignbox box to rectify it. Given this the infobox should be changed to read "Part of Middle Eastern theatre of World War I" which is what Jim had quite a few revisions ago. Anotherclown (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually from looking at this closer this appears to be a fairly complicated issue. I would voice a word of caution before you start changing campaignboxs etc, as it appears that this would effect a number of other articles. Currently it seems that wikipedia treats all the battles of this period as part of the Sinai and Palestine campaign, and where you mention the The Defence of the Suez Canal and Defence of Egypt campaigns this is covered as First Suez Offensive which itself appears to be included as part of the Sinai and Palestine campaign. Indeed the Sinai and Palestine campaignbox currently lists two other battles has having occurred before Romani - First Suez Offensive and Battle of Katia, so are you now of the opinion that they were not part of this campaign? Pls clarify exactly what you are proposing. If wholesale changes are to be considered they will need to be discussed at a central forum such as the main MILHIST talkpage with a consensus developed before changes are made. Anotherclown (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about the Sinai and Palestine campaign template but the "part of" section of the Battle of Romani infobox. As you say, Anotherclown, you "don't have a detailed knowledge of the campaigns" and yet you, Anotherclown, are prepared to carry on edit wars against an editor who has done the spade work, carrying on arguments while all the time, not bothering to do some good solid research yourself. Your single web site source is a good one for unit names, but should be checked against Falls, Wavell, Powles and Preston before making global changes. --Rskp (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rskp can you please elaborate on your comment above where you state: "The Battle of Romani occurred before the Sinai and Palestine campaigns began. So claiming it as part of that campaign is inaccurate"? This doesn't seem to match what is said in the Sinai and Palestine campaign article (please see the Battle of Romani section in that article, where it is covered in detail and below the section "Sinai campaign begins") nor as Anotherclown says, does it match with the campaignbox. His point does in fact seem valid to me, but I would like to hear your opinion on this. What is your take? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)