Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division

Harry Chauvel

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)

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)

Yes well done, that I think works a lot better. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Article name contested

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

• The name of the article should have the same style as similar articles, for example the Australian Mounted Division and the Imperial Mounted Division. The Anzac Mounted Division acknowledges that the original troopers had fought in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (known as ANZAC) during the Gallipoli Campaign.

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)

Yes, do I have to repeat Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (known as ANZAC). --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• 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 [1] refers to both versions.

Wrong again see examples in archives and the section below.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

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 [2] 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)

When you can't argue about the subject you always attack the editor. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

No. There was no need to change the name of the division. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• 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 [3] and here [4] --Rskp (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This has all been addressed in four requested moves and a move review by Admins. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

ANZAC over Anzac

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... [5]

• 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[6]

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. [7] Major General H.G. Chauvel GOC, ANZAC Mounted Division, with his staff near Serapeum Egypt. He was appointed 16th March 1916.[8]

The Australian War Memorial uses ANZAC Mounted Division [9]

• The Alexander Turnbull Library part of the National Library of New Zealand Charge of the ANZAC Mounted Division, Palestine, by Charles Guy Powles. 1917 [10] Note that last was is by Powles who fought with the division.

• The division itself in its own war diary Appendix E1/17 [11] 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. [12]

• By the 4th Cavalry Division in a signal ANZAC Mounted Division page 13. [13]

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)

Suggestion to resolve situation

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)

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 [14] 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. [15] 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 [16] and here [17]. 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)

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)

Following ARs suggestion added some sources use the lower case Anzac etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Disruptive editing - citations cut

"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, 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 [18] --Rskp (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

Ottoman Empire/Turkey

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)