Jump to content

Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Ottoman Empire/Turkey: Evidence Turks Turkey Turkish is not derogatory and used as they were the enemy
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 154: Line 154:


So ample evidence the terms Turk, Turkish, Turkey were not used in any derogatory way as they were the enemy.[[User:Jim Sweeney|Jim Sweeney]] ([[User talk:Jim Sweeney|talk]]) 08:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
So ample evidence the terms Turk, Turkish, Turkey were not used in any derogatory way as they were the enemy.[[User:Jim Sweeney|Jim Sweeney]] ([[User talk:Jim Sweeney|talk]]) 08:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
* '''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. <u>In case of forces of the Ottoman Empire those forces should be referred to as Ottoman forces.</u> Imprecise and sometimes biased derogatory term Turkish should be avoided although not all sources using Turk terminology are using it in derogatory way.--[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 12:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


== Lede section ==
== Lede section ==

Revision as of 12:54, 10 November 2013

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)[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

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 [1] 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 [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)[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 [3] the Australian Light Horse here [4] the 2nd Light Horse Brigade here [5], the 1st Light Horse Brigade here [6], Desert Mounted Corps here [7] and Chaytor's Force here [8] 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]
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

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... [11]

  • 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[12]
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. [13] Major General H.G. Chauvel GOC, ANZAC Mounted Division, with his staff near Serapeum Egypt. He was appointed 16th March 1916.[14]
The Australian War Memorial uses ANZAC Mounted Division [15]
  • The division itself in its own war diary Appendix E1/17 [17] 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. [18]
  • By the 4th Cavalry Division in a signal ANZAC Mounted Division page 13. [19]

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

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 [20] 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. [21] 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 [22] and here [23]. 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]

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,[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 [24] --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 [25].

Yet the next edit [26] 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 [27] 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 [28] 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 [29].

Then Jim Sweeney changed another reference to the official British history of the campaign to a war diary here [30].

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 [31].

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. [32] --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 [33] 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 [34] 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]
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]

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)[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 [35], Turkish [36], Turkey [37]
  • Crimea uses Turks [38],Turkish [39],Turkey [40]
  • The Crimean War uses Turks [41],Turkish [42],Turkey [43]
  • The” Ottoman Crimean War: (1853 - 1856) uses Turks [44] Turkish [45] Turkey [46]

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

  • Florence Nightingale: The Crimean War uses Turks [47], Turkish [48], Turkey [49]

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]

Lede section

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]
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

An illegal use of rollback occurred here [50]. 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

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 [51] 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]
Once again you are breaching the 3RR starting with this edit [52] 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

See [53] where the publication is noted as being part of "New Zealand in the First World War 1914-1918," and here [54] 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 [55]. --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 [56]. 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

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]

ANZAC section

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ANZAC_Mounted_Division&oldid=581036039"