The result of the move request was: Declined, based on official naming at [1], prior consensus at WP:Australia over ANZAC and predominance of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as the basis by those supporting the change Gnan garra 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Gnan garra 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division
Oppose -- The precise location for the previous discussion is: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Continuing problems regarding Anzac/ANZAC/Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. The discussion seems to be between whether the article should be at its official name of Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division or the common name ANZAC, not on capitalisation. ANZAC is an acronym for "Australia and New Zealand Army Corps". As an acronym the use of block capitals is correct. Accordingly the article should stay where it is, but the target is appropriate as a redirect. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I've copied this section regarding published sources from the second Mil Hist discussion -
“ | the literature regarding the Sinai and Palestine campaign refers to the 'Anzac Mounted Division'. See Hill 1978 p. 96, Powles 1922 p. 22, Wavell 1968 p. 90 et al. Bostock served in the 3rd Light Horse Brigade; when his brigade moved to the Imperial Mounted Division, he wrote - "The Anzac Mounted Division still kept its name and was combined with the 1st and 2nd Brigades, New Zealand Mounted, and the 22nd Yeomanry. The new division was called the Imperial Mounted Division and consisted of the 3rd and 4th Light Horse Brigades and the 5th and 6th Yeomanry. We of the 3rd Brigade rather resented the change, as we lost the old name of Anzac. [Bostock, Harry P. (1982). The Great Ride: The Diary of a Light Horse Brigade Scout, World War 1. Perth: Artlook Books p.62] None of these published sources use ANZAC.--Rskp (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | ” |
The acronym ANZAC is correct when its referring to the 'Australian and New Zealand Army Corps', not when it refers to the 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division'. -- Rskp ( talk) 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 02:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason this page should be moved remains the consensus reached on two occasions by the Military History Project's discussion page that 'Anzac Mounted Division' be used instead of 'ANZAC Mounted Division' and instead of 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division.' -- Rskp ( talk) 00:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division is widely known in the literature as the Anzac Mounted Division, although it has also been referred to as the A. & N. Z. Mounted Division and the ANZAC Mounted Division. This last is incorrect as the acronym stands for the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which clearly did not form a mounted division. The latest general history of the Australian mounted arm by Bou uses 'Anzac Mounted Division.' This name has also been agreed to during two discussion on the Military History Project discussion page regarding the use of the name in full and with the acronym. On the basis of these two consensuses the name of the mounted division has been changed in all the relevant articles to 'Anzac Mounted Division' without causing an edit war. Can this article be moved now that more than seven days has elapsed since the original request to move was made? -- Rskp ( talk) 00:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 5 October 2013. The result of the move review was Close endorsed. |
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 23:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division – The consensus of military historians is to use Anzac Mounted Division instead of the cumbersome correct full name of the division, the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, or its abbreviation, A. & N.Z. Mounted Division. Please re-assess the name of this article, as continued use of the all capitals version can only lead to confusion with the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, known as ANZAC which was disbanded in 1916. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 05:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Rskp ( talk) 02:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
2. A consensus of military historians use Anzac Mounted Division and its been suggested by Hawkeye7 that using the all capitals version is "muddle headed," because it is leading to confusion with the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, known as ANZAC which was disbanded in 1916. Confusion is being generated by the use of "ANZAC Division" instead of "Anzac Mounted Division" in the Desert Mounted Corps article which was active from 1916 to 1919. Further, the Anzac Mounted Division article is the only Wikipedia article title using block capitals which does not relate directly to the ANZAC. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
'Support' My primary arguments for the move are -
as well as the issue of the Wikipedia search which AussieLegend highlights. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
How can any reader mistake a division for a corps, that has not even been mentioned in the same articles? But this is just repeating what has been said before. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The changing value of consensus needs to be addressed also. During the first request it was ignored while the second request and review can't see passed it. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural close This request has been heard twice already and the determination of the move review on 15 October was that the last request was closed appropriately.( non-admin closure) Labattblueboy ( talk) 22:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
ANZAC Mounted Division →
Anzac Mounted Division – The first move request had a clear consensus to move from informed and interested editors, but was ignored. The second move request was denied on the basis of a consensus for the status quo without the opposers discussing the issues involved. The first informed consensus should result in the article being moved.
Rskp (
talk)
22:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural close, no action taken. This is just another reopening of the same discussion that closed as no consensus just days ago, and was determined to be legitimate in a move review. The nominator is warned that these continual move requests are becoming disruptive. Cúchullain t/ c 12:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
ANZAC Mounted Division →
Anzac Mounted Division – This move would bring the title in line with similar articles, for example the
Australian Mounted Division and the
Imperial Mounted Division. This all capitals name of the mounted division makes it unique in the Wikipedia articles describing the campaigns the division took part in.
Anzac Mounted Division is recognisable - the literature regarding the Sinai and Palestine campaign refers to the 'Anzac Mounted Division'. See Hill 1978 p. 96, Powles 1922 p. 22, Wavell 1968 p. 90 et al. Bostock served in the 3rd Light Horse Brigade; when his brigade moved to the Imperial Mounted Division, he wrote - "The Anzac Mounted Division still kept its name and was combined with the 1st and 2nd Brigades, New Zealand Mounted, and the 22nd Yeomanry. The new division was called the Imperial Mounted Division and consisted of the 3rd and 4th Light Horse Brigades and the 5th and 6th Yeomanry. We of the 3rd Brigade rather resented the change, as we lost the old name of Anzac. [Bostock, Harry P. (1982). The Great Ride: The Diary of a Light Horse Brigade Scout, World War 1. Perth: Artlook Books p.62] None of these published sources use ANZAC.
Only the Australian War Memorial web site uses the all capitals version.
The Australian Government protection of the word ANZAC here [12] refers to the all capitals version and the Anzac version.
It is naturally and concisely the name of the mounted division as it briefly identifies the unit rather than the potentially confusing official name of the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, the A. & N. Z. Mounted Division, as it appears at the top of the divisions War Diary which can be accessed here [13] or the A and NZ Mounted Division.
The Anzac Mounted Division precisely and unambiguously identifies the mounted division whereas the all capitals version is likely to be misunderstood as to do with the army corps which was disbanded the same year the Anzac Mounted Division was formed. The mounted division has been described as the "ANZAC division" in the article a number of times which only adds to the confusion.
Anzac Mounted Division is consistently used in all articles describing the battles and campaign the division was involved in during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign.
This is not a major move, from the redirect. Rskp ( talk) 01:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The article was originally moved from Anzac Mounted Division by Grant65 who had not edited the article before, nor since, saying (moved Anzac Mounted Division to ANZAC Mounted Division: It was always upper case (ANZAC) when the division existed; the style "Anzac" was not common during WW1. See http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/anzac/acronym/index.asp), relying on the Australian War Memorial's discussion of the acronym. -- Rskp ( talk) 02:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 06:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
See requested moves
|
---|
The all capitals version of the name of this article is contested.
|
See requested moves
|
---|
For the benefit of the editor who refuses to drop they stick. For every book that uses ANZAC there is one that uses Anzac. So we need to examine other higher quality sources. So if we look to the nation that provides the most soldiers the Australian Army. They use ANZAC Mounted Division here - In March 1916, the ANZAC Mounted Division was formed... [32]
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) 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)
Regarding consensus. The first consensus was reached during the first move request. This was ignored when the all capital versions was misunderstood to be the official name of the division. This decision also ignored the two MILHIST discussions here [43] and here [44]. The second so called consensus was based on two votes for the deeply flawed first decision against. The lack of clarity has resulted in such variations as "ANZAC division" and "ANZ MTD DIV." Anzac Mounted Division would clearly reflect the heritage of the original troopers who had fought in the original ANZAC without all the confusion. -- Rskp ( talk) 05:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
An illegal use of rollback occurred here [45]. This rollback did not revert vandalism, of the Anzac Mounted Division article. The edits rollbacked were not accidental, they were properly cited and clearly set out the various names of the division, so cannot be considered to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia. The editor who made the rollbacked edits was not a banned user. -- Rskp ( talk) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
See [48] where the publication is noted as being part of "New Zealand in the First World War 1914-1918," and here [49] where Powles book is listed. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
"The Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division,<refFalls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 156/ref> abbreviated to the A and NZ Mounted Division,<refFalls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 169/ref> and by some sources to the ANZAC Mounted Division, citation needed and by others to the Anzac Mounted Division,<refBou, p.159/ref><refHill 1978 p. 96/ref><refPowles 1922 p. 22/ref><refWavell 1968 p. 90/ref> ..."
This series of sources have been cut in an disruptive editing attack on the article beginning here [52] -- Rskp ( talk) 07:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Yet the next edit [54] cuts the "easily accessible" direct link to the Australian official history on the AWM web site claiming WPCITEVAR, when the link is to the contents page on the web site. The contents page was deliberately chosen as a citation to substantiate the wide use of the Anzac Mounted Division of the version of the name. However, Jim Sweeney has changed the citation to one page of the official history, when the Anzac Mounted Division version of the name appears on the contents page and throughout the publication. I reinstated this citation here [55] to link with the AWM web site contents page. Jim Sweeney changed the citation, cutting the direct link to the easily accessible contents page, to a chapter of the Official Australian history here [56] when the name appears in this form throughout the book.
Then Jim Sweeney edited the information that the Commonwealth Government of Australia regulated the use of the acronym citing both 'ANZAC' and 'Anzac', to make it seem the all capitals version of the division's name is mentioned when it is the acronym of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps that is being discussed, here [57].
Then Jim Sweeney changed another reference to the official British history of the campaign to a war diary here [58].
Then Anotherclown changed a url citation to the whole of the official New Zealand history of the campaign by Powles which refers to the Anzac Mounted Division version of the name throughout the book, to one specific page here [59].
Then Anotherclown changed Jim Sweeney's version of Gullett's link which lost its url citation to become a chapter back down to specific page references, when the Anzac Mounted Division version of the name is used throughout the publication. [60] -- Rskp ( talk) 22:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Then when I add the fact that the division was established with veterans of the Gallipoli campaign you cut it here [61] despite the source clearly setting out the establishment of the Anzac Mounted Division by troops from ANZAC.
Then you cut the ampersand in the abbreviation of the division's name here [62] when Wikipedia policy is clear that ampersands can be used in Wikipedia when its the names of organisations. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
and even a book written on a different aspect of that conflict
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)
It appears there is some misunderstanding regarding terminology in this article.
Based on the consensus reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Arbitrary break, which I closed as an uninvolved MILHIST coord, I have removed the NPOV tag from the article. Cdtew ( talk) 03:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The lede includes
and later talks about the Division being
This strikes me as odd: equating a RHA Brigade - equivalent to a regiment - with a three regiment brigade does not seem right. It gives an incorrect impression of the strength of the Division. Hamish59 ( talk) 10:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
While I would have expected the RHA batteries to have 13-pounders, same as the RHA brigades on the Western Front. The only reference for the size of gun, I have found, is Powles The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine page.12 These batteries were at this time armed with 18 pounders. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 17:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Etymology relates to the history of a word, where as the information in this subsection is a list of the different names, the division has been called. I suggest the subheading be changed to something more easily understood like "Variations of division's names" to clarify why the subsection is included in the article. What do other editors think? -- Rskp ( talk) 01:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Also cut was the information that the abbreviation "A. & N. Z. Mounted Division" appears in the divisional war diary {cite web|publisher=Australian War Memorial|title=General Staff Headquarters ANZAC Mounted Division Appendix E1/17|url= http://static.awm.gov.au/images/collection/bundled/RCDIG1013373.pdf} and that the official Australian and New Zealand campaign histories both refer to the Anzac Mounted Division.{cite web|accessdate=29 October 2013|publisher= Australian War Memorial|title=Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918; Volume VII – The Australian Imperial Force in Sinai and Palestine, 1914–1918 (10th edition, 1941) Contents page|url= http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/AWMOHWW1/AIF/Vol7/} {cite web|accessdate=24 November 2013|publisher= Victoria University of Wellington Library|title=The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine|url= http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH1-Sina.html}
This is valuable information about the service of the men, immediately before they formed the division, which also indicates why "Anzac" appears in the name of the division. Also it shows the use of the abbreviated form in use in the divisional war diary, and indicates what the Australian and New Zealand official histories called the division. It should be reinstated. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The division never served in the Gallipoli campaign so to mention it in the lead is way off focus. Can you self revert or provide a reason it should be there. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 01:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
"Current consensus is that the terms should be left as they are." says FAQ added with this edit ( diff). I think that link to such consensus should be provided.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 01:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Done Jim Sweeney ( talk) 13:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Why are links to the battles the division took part in, being cut from subsection 4 "Battles"? Why is it not possible to mention the larger forces the division was part of, in the info box? -- Rskp ( talk) 23:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Even three notable battles the division took part in during the Sinai and Palestine campaign have now been cut from the infobox here [84]. How can readers gain any idea of what operations this division was involved in if none of the battles are in the infobox? -- Rskp ( talk) 23:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
What is notable about Romani is that in 1916 it stopped a large scale attempt to capture/damage the extremely important British supply line through the Suez Canal. The pursuit which followed saw the EEF eventually recapture the Sinai and advance to the edge of Ottoman Empire territory, in Palestine.
What is notable about the Southern Palestine Offensive is that in 1917 this series of 8 battles resulted in the EEF advancing from the southern edge of Palestine to capture about 50 miles of Ottoman Empire territory, Beersheba, Jaffa and the Holy City of Jerusalem. This was an epoch-making change.
What is notable about the Battle of Megiddo is that in 1918 this series of 10 battles resulted in the capture of another 50 miles or so of Ottoman Empire territory, the destruction of the 8th Ottoman armies, forced the retreat of the 7th Ottoman army commanded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, while Chaytor's Force captured most of the 4th Army. This notable and brilliant victory opened the way for the subsequent pursuit of what remained of the 4th Ottoman army to Damascus and the 7th Ottoman army to Aleppo, when another 50 or 100 miles of Ottoman territory was captured.
If you don't know this stuff, Jim Sweeney what are you doing writing the extensive service histories for this division and Desert Mounted Corps? -- Rskp ( talk) 23:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The identification of the commander of Eastern Force has been cut here, [85] supposedly because "natinality [sic] has no bearing on article." Certainly the division did not serve in Canada, but readers may be interested to know this detail. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
While claiming POV the subsection "Variations in division's name" has been changed back to the incomprehensible "Etymology" as this section is not about the history of a word but about the various names the division has been called in the sources. [86] While the editor is insistent on using the ANZAC acronym in the mounted division's name, in this same edit they have cut any mention of the men who formed the division, having served in ANZAC the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps during the Gallipoli campaign. Also cut is information about the use of some of the different names, for example in the war diaries of the division. Cut also is mention that both the Australian and New Zealand official histories of the campaign use the noun "Anzac Mounted Division." Even the citation to the New Zealand official history has been cut, and the citation for the Gallipoli campaign service has also been cut in the same edit. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
See requested moves already discussed more than once
|
---|
The official name is in fact the "Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division" which has been abbreviated to "A & NZ Mounted Division" in the British official history of the campaign and at the top of each page of the war diaries. Within the war diaries tend to block capital all names of places etc. hence the Australian War Memorial using the block capitals form of the noun for the name of the mounted division. The trouble with this block capitals form is that it can easily be confused with the ANZAC, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which served during the Gallipoli Campaign. It was the surviving Australian light horsemen and most of the New Zealand mounted riflemen (one New Zealand regiment ended up on the Western Front) who formed the Anzac Mounted Division in early 1916, along with reinforcements. Hence the unofficial name of the division which is and was widely used, including one trooper from the 3rd Light Horse Brigade who lamented the loss of the "Anzac Mounted Division" name, when the Imperial Mounted Division was formed and his brigade transferred to it in 1917. "We of the 3rd Brigade rather resented the change, as we lost the old name of Anzac." [Bostock, Harry P. (1982). The Great Ride: The Diary of a Light Horse Brigade Scout, World War 1. Perth: Artlook Books p. 62] Within Wikipedia the use of the official name would be unwieldy and create confusion with the Australian Mounted Division, which the Imperial Mounted Division became a few months later. Within the Desert Mounted Corps there were three divisions, the oldest, the Anzac Mounted Division, then the Australian Mounted Division and the youngest, the Yeomanry Mounted Division. For clarity and consistency with the names of the divisions which make up the mounted corps the noun is recognisable, natural, precise, consise and consistent. See Wikipedia:Article titles. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC) |
Es Salt is not north of Amman. The claim that it is needs to be corrected. -- Rskp ( talk) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The extensive "Service history" subsection relies, almost exclusively on two very old sources, published in 1922 and 1923. This has resulted in a very out of date view of the division's campaign. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The Sinai and Palestine campaign and the World War I campaign boxes which were recently added to this article have been cut, claiming "not a campaign or theatre of wwi." That is true, but this article describes a division which operated IN the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I. Why should these campaign boxes not be part of the article? -- Rskp ( talk) 00:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It is apparent that there are serious ownership issues with the edits of Jim Sweeney which have cut relevant, notable information from the article.
[87] cut description of the Australians and New Zealanders returning after serving dismounted in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) during the Gallipoli campaign, claiming "not accurate see talk - not all the divisions manpower fought at Gallipoli - even the Australian and New Zealand contingent had few who had taken part in fighting at Gallipoli"
[88] cut ANZAC claiming "acronym not needed as not repeated and not needed where placed after division" *Mention of the service by the light horse and mounted rifle brigades in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, ANZAC, remains cut
[89] cut mention of and link to Battle of the Nek, from service by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Light Horse. Also cut New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade service on Gallipoli, claiming "tighten wording"
[90] cut Australia and New Zealand from the country section of the infobox, claiming Australia and New Zealand part of the British Empire, and [91] cut Post War from list of commanders, claiming better layout - no need for distinction
[92] cut identification of 4th Light Horse Brigade as part of Australian Mounted Division, claiming "off focus"
[93] cut link to First Battle of Amman claiming "Fork article removed details already included in main article under heading"
[94] cut link to Third Transjordan attack claiming "easter egg removed"
[95] cut photo of the first commander, the light horse in Egypt, while only claiming a template was added, and [96] cut photo of Australian light horsemen with rifles over their shoulders, claiming "remove image as text squeezed"
Information about the change of in the size of the artillery and photographs have also been cut from the Order of battle. "On establishment the division had been supplied with 18–pounder artillery guns in 1916. In September 1917 they were reduced to 13-pounder guns, making the division "even more capable," according to Erickson."[24][25][26]" See [97]
When one editor keeps such tight hold on an article while it is being developed, the wider Wikipedia community and readers are the poorer. -- Rskp ( talk) 00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
"Dobell's plan for the second battle required his infantry to assault Gaza itself while the mounted forces would operate on their right flank, to force the Turkish troops towards Beersheba, hinder the movement of reinforcements from there to Gaza, and prepare to pursue any retreating Turkish forces." [Gullett, p.301] "to force the Turkish troops towards Beersheba" appears not to make sense, as my understanding was that the mounted units were to cover the infantry's right flank and take advantage of any break in the defenders' line. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The division's next operation was a raid on Amman, thirty miles (48 km) east-north-east of Jericho, by the division, with the ICCB attached, supported by the 60th (London) Division. [Powles, p.191]
However page 191 reads: "Eventually the Brigade was accommodated in the olive groves between Bethlehem and the village of Beit Jala, where shelter from the cold wet winds was obtained. Here the Brigade remained until the 20th, again making use of every available hour by sending into Bethlehem and Jerusalem parties sight seeing.
But Jerusalem in winter, with rain, sleet and wind, is not the city of our books or of our dreams, and much more enjoyable visits were paid in after days during the sojourn of the Brigade in the Jordan Valley. On the 20th the Brigade marched down the main Jericho road after dark and bivouacked in the Wilderness close to Talaat ed Dumm—the Good Samaritan's Inn.
Here, among the rocky hills, which gave much discomfort to the horses, the next three days were passed, owing to the heavy rains interfering with the crossing of the Jordan. Every" [page ends] -- Rskp ( talk) 00:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Declined, based on official naming at [1], prior consensus at WP:Australia over ANZAC and predominance of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as the basis by those supporting the change Gnan garra 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Gnan garra 02:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division
Oppose -- The precise location for the previous discussion is: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Continuing problems regarding Anzac/ANZAC/Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. The discussion seems to be between whether the article should be at its official name of Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division or the common name ANZAC, not on capitalisation. ANZAC is an acronym for "Australia and New Zealand Army Corps". As an acronym the use of block capitals is correct. Accordingly the article should stay where it is, but the target is appropriate as a redirect. Peterkingiron ( talk) 00:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I've copied this section regarding published sources from the second Mil Hist discussion -
“ | the literature regarding the Sinai and Palestine campaign refers to the 'Anzac Mounted Division'. See Hill 1978 p. 96, Powles 1922 p. 22, Wavell 1968 p. 90 et al. Bostock served in the 3rd Light Horse Brigade; when his brigade moved to the Imperial Mounted Division, he wrote - "The Anzac Mounted Division still kept its name and was combined with the 1st and 2nd Brigades, New Zealand Mounted, and the 22nd Yeomanry. The new division was called the Imperial Mounted Division and consisted of the 3rd and 4th Light Horse Brigades and the 5th and 6th Yeomanry. We of the 3rd Brigade rather resented the change, as we lost the old name of Anzac. [Bostock, Harry P. (1982). The Great Ride: The Diary of a Light Horse Brigade Scout, World War 1. Perth: Artlook Books p.62] None of these published sources use ANZAC.--Rskp (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | ” |
The acronym ANZAC is correct when its referring to the 'Australian and New Zealand Army Corps', not when it refers to the 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division'. -- Rskp ( talk) 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 02:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason this page should be moved remains the consensus reached on two occasions by the Military History Project's discussion page that 'Anzac Mounted Division' be used instead of 'ANZAC Mounted Division' and instead of 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division.' -- Rskp ( talk) 00:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division is widely known in the literature as the Anzac Mounted Division, although it has also been referred to as the A. & N. Z. Mounted Division and the ANZAC Mounted Division. This last is incorrect as the acronym stands for the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which clearly did not form a mounted division. The latest general history of the Australian mounted arm by Bou uses 'Anzac Mounted Division.' This name has also been agreed to during two discussion on the Military History Project discussion page regarding the use of the name in full and with the acronym. On the basis of these two consensuses the name of the mounted division has been changed in all the relevant articles to 'Anzac Mounted Division' without causing an edit war. Can this article be moved now that more than seven days has elapsed since the original request to move was made? -- Rskp ( talk) 00:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 5 October 2013. The result of the move review was Close endorsed. |
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 23:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division – The consensus of military historians is to use Anzac Mounted Division instead of the cumbersome correct full name of the division, the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, or its abbreviation, A. & N.Z. Mounted Division. Please re-assess the name of this article, as continued use of the all capitals version can only lead to confusion with the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, known as ANZAC which was disbanded in 1916. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 05:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Rskp ( talk) 02:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
2. A consensus of military historians use Anzac Mounted Division and its been suggested by Hawkeye7 that using the all capitals version is "muddle headed," because it is leading to confusion with the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, known as ANZAC which was disbanded in 1916. Confusion is being generated by the use of "ANZAC Division" instead of "Anzac Mounted Division" in the Desert Mounted Corps article which was active from 1916 to 1919. Further, the Anzac Mounted Division article is the only Wikipedia article title using block capitals which does not relate directly to the ANZAC. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
'Support' My primary arguments for the move are -
as well as the issue of the Wikipedia search which AussieLegend highlights. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
How can any reader mistake a division for a corps, that has not even been mentioned in the same articles? But this is just repeating what has been said before. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The changing value of consensus needs to be addressed also. During the first request it was ignored while the second request and review can't see passed it. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural close This request has been heard twice already and the determination of the move review on 15 October was that the last request was closed appropriately.( non-admin closure) Labattblueboy ( talk) 22:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
ANZAC Mounted Division →
Anzac Mounted Division – The first move request had a clear consensus to move from informed and interested editors, but was ignored. The second move request was denied on the basis of a consensus for the status quo without the opposers discussing the issues involved. The first informed consensus should result in the article being moved.
Rskp (
talk)
22:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural close, no action taken. This is just another reopening of the same discussion that closed as no consensus just days ago, and was determined to be legitimate in a move review. The nominator is warned that these continual move requests are becoming disruptive. Cúchullain t/ c 12:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
ANZAC Mounted Division →
Anzac Mounted Division – This move would bring the title in line with similar articles, for example the
Australian Mounted Division and the
Imperial Mounted Division. This all capitals name of the mounted division makes it unique in the Wikipedia articles describing the campaigns the division took part in.
Anzac Mounted Division is recognisable - the literature regarding the Sinai and Palestine campaign refers to the 'Anzac Mounted Division'. See Hill 1978 p. 96, Powles 1922 p. 22, Wavell 1968 p. 90 et al. Bostock served in the 3rd Light Horse Brigade; when his brigade moved to the Imperial Mounted Division, he wrote - "The Anzac Mounted Division still kept its name and was combined with the 1st and 2nd Brigades, New Zealand Mounted, and the 22nd Yeomanry. The new division was called the Imperial Mounted Division and consisted of the 3rd and 4th Light Horse Brigades and the 5th and 6th Yeomanry. We of the 3rd Brigade rather resented the change, as we lost the old name of Anzac. [Bostock, Harry P. (1982). The Great Ride: The Diary of a Light Horse Brigade Scout, World War 1. Perth: Artlook Books p.62] None of these published sources use ANZAC.
Only the Australian War Memorial web site uses the all capitals version.
The Australian Government protection of the word ANZAC here [12] refers to the all capitals version and the Anzac version.
It is naturally and concisely the name of the mounted division as it briefly identifies the unit rather than the potentially confusing official name of the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, the A. & N. Z. Mounted Division, as it appears at the top of the divisions War Diary which can be accessed here [13] or the A and NZ Mounted Division.
The Anzac Mounted Division precisely and unambiguously identifies the mounted division whereas the all capitals version is likely to be misunderstood as to do with the army corps which was disbanded the same year the Anzac Mounted Division was formed. The mounted division has been described as the "ANZAC division" in the article a number of times which only adds to the confusion.
Anzac Mounted Division is consistently used in all articles describing the battles and campaign the division was involved in during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign.
This is not a major move, from the redirect. Rskp ( talk) 01:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The article was originally moved from Anzac Mounted Division by Grant65 who had not edited the article before, nor since, saying (moved Anzac Mounted Division to ANZAC Mounted Division: It was always upper case (ANZAC) when the division existed; the style "Anzac" was not common during WW1. See http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/anzac/acronym/index.asp), relying on the Australian War Memorial's discussion of the acronym. -- Rskp ( talk) 02:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 06:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
See requested moves
|
---|
The all capitals version of the name of this article is contested.
|
See requested moves
|
---|
For the benefit of the editor who refuses to drop they stick. For every book that uses ANZAC there is one that uses Anzac. So we need to examine other higher quality sources. So if we look to the nation that provides the most soldiers the Australian Army. They use ANZAC Mounted Division here - In March 1916, the ANZAC Mounted Division was formed... [32]
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) 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)
Regarding consensus. The first consensus was reached during the first move request. This was ignored when the all capital versions was misunderstood to be the official name of the division. This decision also ignored the two MILHIST discussions here [43] and here [44]. The second so called consensus was based on two votes for the deeply flawed first decision against. The lack of clarity has resulted in such variations as "ANZAC division" and "ANZ MTD DIV." Anzac Mounted Division would clearly reflect the heritage of the original troopers who had fought in the original ANZAC without all the confusion. -- Rskp ( talk) 05:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
|
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)
An illegal use of rollback occurred here [45]. This rollback did not revert vandalism, of the Anzac Mounted Division article. The edits rollbacked were not accidental, they were properly cited and clearly set out the various names of the division, so cannot be considered to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia. The editor who made the rollbacked edits was not a banned user. -- Rskp ( talk) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
See [48] where the publication is noted as being part of "New Zealand in the First World War 1914-1918," and here [49] where Powles book is listed. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
"The Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division,<refFalls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 156/ref> abbreviated to the A and NZ Mounted Division,<refFalls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 169/ref> and by some sources to the ANZAC Mounted Division, citation needed and by others to the Anzac Mounted Division,<refBou, p.159/ref><refHill 1978 p. 96/ref><refPowles 1922 p. 22/ref><refWavell 1968 p. 90/ref> ..."
This series of sources have been cut in an disruptive editing attack on the article beginning here [52] -- Rskp ( talk) 07:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Yet the next edit [54] cuts the "easily accessible" direct link to the Australian official history on the AWM web site claiming WPCITEVAR, when the link is to the contents page on the web site. The contents page was deliberately chosen as a citation to substantiate the wide use of the Anzac Mounted Division of the version of the name. However, Jim Sweeney has changed the citation to one page of the official history, when the Anzac Mounted Division version of the name appears on the contents page and throughout the publication. I reinstated this citation here [55] to link with the AWM web site contents page. Jim Sweeney changed the citation, cutting the direct link to the easily accessible contents page, to a chapter of the Official Australian history here [56] when the name appears in this form throughout the book.
Then Jim Sweeney edited the information that the Commonwealth Government of Australia regulated the use of the acronym citing both 'ANZAC' and 'Anzac', to make it seem the all capitals version of the division's name is mentioned when it is the acronym of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps that is being discussed, here [57].
Then Jim Sweeney changed another reference to the official British history of the campaign to a war diary here [58].
Then Anotherclown changed a url citation to the whole of the official New Zealand history of the campaign by Powles which refers to the Anzac Mounted Division version of the name throughout the book, to one specific page here [59].
Then Anotherclown changed Jim Sweeney's version of Gullett's link which lost its url citation to become a chapter back down to specific page references, when the Anzac Mounted Division version of the name is used throughout the publication. [60] -- Rskp ( talk) 22:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Then when I add the fact that the division was established with veterans of the Gallipoli campaign you cut it here [61] despite the source clearly setting out the establishment of the Anzac Mounted Division by troops from ANZAC.
Then you cut the ampersand in the abbreviation of the division's name here [62] when Wikipedia policy is clear that ampersands can be used in Wikipedia when its the names of organisations. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
and even a book written on a different aspect of that conflict
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)
It appears there is some misunderstanding regarding terminology in this article.
Based on the consensus reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Arbitrary break, which I closed as an uninvolved MILHIST coord, I have removed the NPOV tag from the article. Cdtew ( talk) 03:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The lede includes
and later talks about the Division being
This strikes me as odd: equating a RHA Brigade - equivalent to a regiment - with a three regiment brigade does not seem right. It gives an incorrect impression of the strength of the Division. Hamish59 ( talk) 10:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
While I would have expected the RHA batteries to have 13-pounders, same as the RHA brigades on the Western Front. The only reference for the size of gun, I have found, is Powles The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine page.12 These batteries were at this time armed with 18 pounders. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 17:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Etymology relates to the history of a word, where as the information in this subsection is a list of the different names, the division has been called. I suggest the subheading be changed to something more easily understood like "Variations of division's names" to clarify why the subsection is included in the article. What do other editors think? -- Rskp ( talk) 01:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Also cut was the information that the abbreviation "A. & N. Z. Mounted Division" appears in the divisional war diary {cite web|publisher=Australian War Memorial|title=General Staff Headquarters ANZAC Mounted Division Appendix E1/17|url= http://static.awm.gov.au/images/collection/bundled/RCDIG1013373.pdf} and that the official Australian and New Zealand campaign histories both refer to the Anzac Mounted Division.{cite web|accessdate=29 October 2013|publisher= Australian War Memorial|title=Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918; Volume VII – The Australian Imperial Force in Sinai and Palestine, 1914–1918 (10th edition, 1941) Contents page|url= http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/AWMOHWW1/AIF/Vol7/} {cite web|accessdate=24 November 2013|publisher= Victoria University of Wellington Library|title=The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine|url= http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH1-Sina.html}
This is valuable information about the service of the men, immediately before they formed the division, which also indicates why "Anzac" appears in the name of the division. Also it shows the use of the abbreviated form in use in the divisional war diary, and indicates what the Australian and New Zealand official histories called the division. It should be reinstated. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The division never served in the Gallipoli campaign so to mention it in the lead is way off focus. Can you self revert or provide a reason it should be there. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 01:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
"Current consensus is that the terms should be left as they are." says FAQ added with this edit ( diff). I think that link to such consensus should be provided.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 01:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Done Jim Sweeney ( talk) 13:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Why are links to the battles the division took part in, being cut from subsection 4 "Battles"? Why is it not possible to mention the larger forces the division was part of, in the info box? -- Rskp ( talk) 23:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Even three notable battles the division took part in during the Sinai and Palestine campaign have now been cut from the infobox here [84]. How can readers gain any idea of what operations this division was involved in if none of the battles are in the infobox? -- Rskp ( talk) 23:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
What is notable about Romani is that in 1916 it stopped a large scale attempt to capture/damage the extremely important British supply line through the Suez Canal. The pursuit which followed saw the EEF eventually recapture the Sinai and advance to the edge of Ottoman Empire territory, in Palestine.
What is notable about the Southern Palestine Offensive is that in 1917 this series of 8 battles resulted in the EEF advancing from the southern edge of Palestine to capture about 50 miles of Ottoman Empire territory, Beersheba, Jaffa and the Holy City of Jerusalem. This was an epoch-making change.
What is notable about the Battle of Megiddo is that in 1918 this series of 10 battles resulted in the capture of another 50 miles or so of Ottoman Empire territory, the destruction of the 8th Ottoman armies, forced the retreat of the 7th Ottoman army commanded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, while Chaytor's Force captured most of the 4th Army. This notable and brilliant victory opened the way for the subsequent pursuit of what remained of the 4th Ottoman army to Damascus and the 7th Ottoman army to Aleppo, when another 50 or 100 miles of Ottoman territory was captured.
If you don't know this stuff, Jim Sweeney what are you doing writing the extensive service histories for this division and Desert Mounted Corps? -- Rskp ( talk) 23:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The identification of the commander of Eastern Force has been cut here, [85] supposedly because "natinality [sic] has no bearing on article." Certainly the division did not serve in Canada, but readers may be interested to know this detail. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
While claiming POV the subsection "Variations in division's name" has been changed back to the incomprehensible "Etymology" as this section is not about the history of a word but about the various names the division has been called in the sources. [86] While the editor is insistent on using the ANZAC acronym in the mounted division's name, in this same edit they have cut any mention of the men who formed the division, having served in ANZAC the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps during the Gallipoli campaign. Also cut is information about the use of some of the different names, for example in the war diaries of the division. Cut also is mention that both the Australian and New Zealand official histories of the campaign use the noun "Anzac Mounted Division." Even the citation to the New Zealand official history has been cut, and the citation for the Gallipoli campaign service has also been cut in the same edit. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
See requested moves already discussed more than once
|
---|
The official name is in fact the "Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division" which has been abbreviated to "A & NZ Mounted Division" in the British official history of the campaign and at the top of each page of the war diaries. Within the war diaries tend to block capital all names of places etc. hence the Australian War Memorial using the block capitals form of the noun for the name of the mounted division. The trouble with this block capitals form is that it can easily be confused with the ANZAC, the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which served during the Gallipoli Campaign. It was the surviving Australian light horsemen and most of the New Zealand mounted riflemen (one New Zealand regiment ended up on the Western Front) who formed the Anzac Mounted Division in early 1916, along with reinforcements. Hence the unofficial name of the division which is and was widely used, including one trooper from the 3rd Light Horse Brigade who lamented the loss of the "Anzac Mounted Division" name, when the Imperial Mounted Division was formed and his brigade transferred to it in 1917. "We of the 3rd Brigade rather resented the change, as we lost the old name of Anzac." [Bostock, Harry P. (1982). The Great Ride: The Diary of a Light Horse Brigade Scout, World War 1. Perth: Artlook Books p. 62] Within Wikipedia the use of the official name would be unwieldy and create confusion with the Australian Mounted Division, which the Imperial Mounted Division became a few months later. Within the Desert Mounted Corps there were three divisions, the oldest, the Anzac Mounted Division, then the Australian Mounted Division and the youngest, the Yeomanry Mounted Division. For clarity and consistency with the names of the divisions which make up the mounted corps the noun is recognisable, natural, precise, consise and consistent. See Wikipedia:Article titles. -- Rskp ( talk) 23:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC) |
Es Salt is not north of Amman. The claim that it is needs to be corrected. -- Rskp ( talk) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The extensive "Service history" subsection relies, almost exclusively on two very old sources, published in 1922 and 1923. This has resulted in a very out of date view of the division's campaign. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The Sinai and Palestine campaign and the World War I campaign boxes which were recently added to this article have been cut, claiming "not a campaign or theatre of wwi." That is true, but this article describes a division which operated IN the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I. Why should these campaign boxes not be part of the article? -- Rskp ( talk) 00:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
It is apparent that there are serious ownership issues with the edits of Jim Sweeney which have cut relevant, notable information from the article.
[87] cut description of the Australians and New Zealanders returning after serving dismounted in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) during the Gallipoli campaign, claiming "not accurate see talk - not all the divisions manpower fought at Gallipoli - even the Australian and New Zealand contingent had few who had taken part in fighting at Gallipoli"
[88] cut ANZAC claiming "acronym not needed as not repeated and not needed where placed after division" *Mention of the service by the light horse and mounted rifle brigades in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, ANZAC, remains cut
[89] cut mention of and link to Battle of the Nek, from service by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Light Horse. Also cut New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade service on Gallipoli, claiming "tighten wording"
[90] cut Australia and New Zealand from the country section of the infobox, claiming Australia and New Zealand part of the British Empire, and [91] cut Post War from list of commanders, claiming better layout - no need for distinction
[92] cut identification of 4th Light Horse Brigade as part of Australian Mounted Division, claiming "off focus"
[93] cut link to First Battle of Amman claiming "Fork article removed details already included in main article under heading"
[94] cut link to Third Transjordan attack claiming "easter egg removed"
[95] cut photo of the first commander, the light horse in Egypt, while only claiming a template was added, and [96] cut photo of Australian light horsemen with rifles over their shoulders, claiming "remove image as text squeezed"
Information about the change of in the size of the artillery and photographs have also been cut from the Order of battle. "On establishment the division had been supplied with 18–pounder artillery guns in 1916. In September 1917 they were reduced to 13-pounder guns, making the division "even more capable," according to Erickson."[24][25][26]" See [97]
When one editor keeps such tight hold on an article while it is being developed, the wider Wikipedia community and readers are the poorer. -- Rskp ( talk) 00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
"Dobell's plan for the second battle required his infantry to assault Gaza itself while the mounted forces would operate on their right flank, to force the Turkish troops towards Beersheba, hinder the movement of reinforcements from there to Gaza, and prepare to pursue any retreating Turkish forces." [Gullett, p.301] "to force the Turkish troops towards Beersheba" appears not to make sense, as my understanding was that the mounted units were to cover the infantry's right flank and take advantage of any break in the defenders' line. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The division's next operation was a raid on Amman, thirty miles (48 km) east-north-east of Jericho, by the division, with the ICCB attached, supported by the 60th (London) Division. [Powles, p.191]
However page 191 reads: "Eventually the Brigade was accommodated in the olive groves between Bethlehem and the village of Beit Jala, where shelter from the cold wet winds was obtained. Here the Brigade remained until the 20th, again making use of every available hour by sending into Bethlehem and Jerusalem parties sight seeing.
But Jerusalem in winter, with rain, sleet and wind, is not the city of our books or of our dreams, and much more enjoyable visits were paid in after days during the sojourn of the Brigade in the Jordan Valley. On the 20th the Brigade marched down the main Jericho road after dark and bivouacked in the Wilderness close to Talaat ed Dumm—the Good Samaritan's Inn.
Here, among the rocky hills, which gave much discomfort to the horses, the next three days were passed, owing to the heavy rains interfering with the crossing of the Jordan. Every" [page ends] -- Rskp ( talk) 00:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)