Jump to content

Talk:Dunsterforce

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

Expansion

[edit]

Added more detail, most from Nicholson and cut 'n' pasted some background, added pics. Needs the AOH and more from Moberly.Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

Stanley Savige has some detail about the protection of Assyrian refugees by elements of Dunsterforce. Might be worth a mention? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I've run out of steam.Keith-264 (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I don't mention medals, I only cite them where other people do. Is it any better now?Keith-264 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding material in the sandbox courtesy of Bean but will need to wait until OH Meso IV arrives (£5 plus postage the hardback!) Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remember vaguely noticing the British Empire entry in the infobox and doing nothing about it. I'm not sure about the second notable commander now, I didn't notice his name in the sources so I'll revisit once OH Meso IV arrives. Keith-264 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Ranald MacDonell was not a commander of Dunsterforce. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I managed to forget Erickson (!) but have added details of Ottoman moves from him. It's nice to have a source a mere 14 years old to consult.;O) Keith-264 (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Iran/Persia

[edit]

There is no need to put this discussion in the main article, as it does not relate to the subject of the article at all. The article is about a particular military expedition. The country concerned was called Persia at that time. Today it is called Iran. A long explanation about the name should not appear in the body of the article, as it is distracting and not directly relevant. It should appear in a footnote, if at all.

If there is a consensus among modern historians about which term should be used when discussing historical events, then that should be used. Otherwise 'Persia' would seem to make more sense up to the time the name was changed.

If Keith-264 feels that a discussion is necessary in the body of text rather than a footnote, then I suggest that he explains why, and justifies his reasoning. Green Wyvern (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your opinion man. The name of the place surely matters in an encyclopaedia and since there can be confusion and ignorance over it, the lead is the place to mention it. Thanks for asking. Keith-264 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the place matters, but it should be discussed in the right place, that is, in the entry for Name of Iran, where it is discussed in detail. This is not just my opinion, it is Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenWyvern1 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit (by mistake because I changed my mind half-way through a rollback but it was too late.) because consensus had not been established. The disputed passage is not a discussion it is a description. I am happy to incorporate the wikilink but it needs a gloss. Perhaps Name of Iran and a sentence? The article is helpful but lacks citations so we have to be careful not to use it as a source. OK?Keith-264 (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


How about adding (cf. Name of Iran) at the beginning, or the first use of Iran? 74.10.226.170 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, wish I'd read this page before editing again. ;o) 'Tis done. Keith-264 (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Yay, everybody happy, everybody dance!74.10.226.170 (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dunsterforce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties?

[edit]

The section headed "casualties" is truly bizarre. Just one Canadian officer worthy of mention? - Surely an insult to all the others who died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.221.115 (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's cited; if you can adduce other casualties with evidence get to it. Keith-264 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dunsterforce&oldid=1207060921"