![]() | Battle of Romani has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 5, 2012, August 5, 2014, August 5, 2016, August 5, 2018, August 5, 2020, and August 5, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Currently Romani is a disambig that doesn't even mention a town of such a name...? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There is an unsourced description of the battle which I would like to edit to incorporate Powles view. Are there any disagreements to this project?-- RoslynSKP ( talk) 03:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The British Army in the First World War did not use infantry in its formation names. Its 53rd (Welsh) Division not 53rd (Welsh) Infantry Division. Brigades had a unique name in most cases 126th (East Lancashire) Brigade , not 126th Infantry Brigade. Those without a unique name just used 1st Brigade etc. Persons names should be in full when first used Winston Spencer Churchill not W.S. Churchill for example. The ANZAC Mounted Division is an acronym Anzac is wrong, ANZAC should be used or its full name Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. The British Empire is used throughout the article, and in the info box, so there is no need to list the parts of the empire involved, note the same is never applied to the Ottoman/German side of the inf box. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 08:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The ANZAC Acronym
ANZAC is the acronym formed from the initial letters of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, the formation into which Australian and New Zealand soldiers were grouped in Egypt prior to the landing at Gallipoli in April 1915.
First written as A. & N. Z. Army Corps, it soon became A. N. Z. A. C. and the new word was so obvious that the full stops were omitted. The word was initially used to refer to the cove where the Australians and New Zealanders landed and soon after, to the men themselves. An ANZAC was a man who was at the Landing and who fought at Gallipoli, but later it came to mean any Australian or New Zealand soldier of the First World War. An ANZAC who served at Gallipoli was given an A badge which was attached to his colour patch.
Following the allied withdrawal from Gallipoli and the expansion of Australian and New Zealand forces in Egypt early in 1916, the ANZAC was split into two new formations called I ANZAC Corps and II ANZAC Corps – despite the repetition of the word Corps in their name. These formations, I ANZAC Corps comprising three Australian divisions and II ANZAC Corps made up of the 4th and 5th Australian divisions and the New Zealand Division, were transferred to France and fought on the Western Front until 1917, when the five Australian formations were grouped into a single Australian Corps. Also in March 1916, the ANZAC Mounted Division was formed from three Australian Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade for service in Sinai and Palestine. In 1916 – 1917 a joint signals unit, the 1st (ANZAC) Wireless Signal Squadron, operated with the British expeditionary force in Mesopotamia (now Iraq). Jim Sweeney ( talk) 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I have a number of concerns about the neutrality of this article, which although relatively minor have been reverted when I have attempted to fix them myself, and as such remain an issue IMO. Specifically:
Hello all. There is currently a red link to the 4th Ottoman Army. IMO, this could be linked to Fourth Army (Ottoman Empire). For what it is worth, IMO, there is nothing wrong with red links, so long as they are to notable topics. Units such as the Australian light horse regiments are notable, IMO, because of the coverage they have received. For instance, there are full WWI histories of them available here: [6]; these, along with a book or two, would allow for a decent article to be written on them, thus making them notable. I would hazard that divisional sized organisations in the Ottoman Army would also be notable, although probably their coverage in English would not be as extensive. At the end of the day, though, it is not necessarily the size of a unit that determines notability, but in fact the level of sourcing. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to jump in - and please note that I'm saying this as an uninvolved admin - could I suggest that everyone involved in this series of disputes steps away from articles on this theater of World War I for a few days? (for instance, until this Friday). I'm seeing several very good editors at each other's throats over these disagreements, and it's not doing anyone any good (Jim and Rskp, you could have been blocked for the edit war which was going on here before the page was protected). I'd also suggest that rather than thrash out the (roughly) same set of issues on several articles that you start a centralised discussion at WT:MILHIST or through a request for comment. But a break from the disagreement would be a good first step. Nick-D ( talk) 10:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Where there has been substance or value in their edits I have welcomed their contributions. But where there is no substance or value, I have not and will not. So many red links detract from this article, they do not improve it. -- Rskp ( talk) 00:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently the bibliography lists the fol:
However as near as I can tell only "3rd LHB War Diary 10 April 1916 AWM 4,10/3/15" is used as an inline citation (footnote 9). As such the rest should be removed to a "Further reading" section. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
As above I have expressed concern about the use of out of date sources, I therefore summarise my concerns as such:
While I agree that a number of the older sources are important works in the field, particularly the official histories, the overall age of the bulk of the sources relied upon indicates to me that the article is unlikely to reflect the body of research currently available, which is one of the key GA criteria. Indeed many are 70 to 90 years old, and as a consequence I am left to draw the conclusion that more recent sources really should be more thoroughly consulted. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
There appear to be a number of errors in the citation used:
Unless I missed something these need to be added to the Bibliography/corrected. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division has been used to prevent edit war between ANZAC and Anzac. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Another concern that I have about this article is its lack of focus. Indeed while it purports to be about the Battle of Romani (4–5 August 1916), it seems to cover significantly more ground that this. Indeed approxiamately half of the article deals with events that occurred on 5–12 August. Whilst these events are certainly relevant, they should really be covered in far less detail by being condensed and moved into the aftermath section per WP:MILMOS/C. If they are sufficiently notable a parent article could be started to cover this period in detail.
An examination of the article structure might illustrate the point:
1 Background
2 Prelude
3 Battle on 4 August
4 Battle on 5 August
5 Chauvel's force advance on Ottoman rearguards
6 Action of Bir el Abd – 9 to 12 August
7 Aftermath
IMO sections 5 and 6 really do not belong in the "Battle" section at all as they occurred, yet they have been treated as though they were apart of it. As such I have to question if it really meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria number 3: Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Anotherclown ( talk) 20:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The following was inserted in this article - {{clarify|Both brigades were in the 18th (Eastern) Division and only served in France. ANSWER: Please check your source. Infantry in the 53rd and 54th Divisions attacked Gaza in March 1917 see [[First Battle of Gaza]] Falls states these machine gun companies were in Egypt at this time. What is your reference? - the clarification is the numbers given for the brigades - not the machine gun companies |date=December 2011}} Yes, I understand that its the 53rd and 54th Divisions which you dispute being in the Sinai and Palestine. This seems a clash of sources. But cutting the reference to the 53rd and 54th Infantry Brigades means the article has been degraded by cutting valid verifiable information. [8] The reference used to include the 53rd and 54th Divisions is Falls 1930 Vol. 1 page 181. I will be reinserting mention of these two divisions while waiting to hear what sources place them on the western front for the entire war.-- Rskp ( talk) 02:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the official name given to the campaign by the British Parliament some 90 years ago. Since then this campaign has been known by those names. How can that be POV? Is the huge memorial near Ismailia on the Suez Canal to those who fought in the Defence of the Suez Canal campaign POV? Anotherclown please recognise an official source is not POV - this is the English language Wikipedia after all.-- Rskp ( talk) 02:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok so now we have "Part of Sinai and Palestine Campaign also known as the; Offensive zur Eroberung des Suezkanals (German); İkinci Kanal Harekâtı (Turkish)" in the infobox, which is definately better than what you had previously which we have now clearly established was reflective of British POV. However, the issue I see here now is twofold: one is that there is now too much unneccesary infomation in the infobox and two that most people on English wikipedia cannot read German or Turkish. IMO the German and Turkish names for the Sinai and Palestine campaign should definately be included in the parent article if they are not already (but including their English translation per the WP:MOS). It is my assertion that there really is no need for them here, as the focus of this article is just a battle of that campaign not the campaign itself. The infobox for this article can just say Sinai and Palestine campaign or Middle Eastern theatre of World War I as either would be acceptable for NPOV. Now if we know the German and Turkish names for the Battle of Romani then they should definately be included here. Thoughts? Anotherclown ( talk) 21:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The following has been copied and pasted from the Military History Project discussion page archives for the benefit of the continued discussion regarding the name of this mounted division. [10]
Hi there has been a dispute in several articles over the term ANZAC. Mostly associated with the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. One user insists it should be Anzac Mounted Division, two have agreed it should be ANZAC. The compromise of using the full Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division to prevent an edit war has been rejected by one user.
ANZAC is the correct name used by the Australian War Memorial, see here [10] and here [11] it details the use of the acronym which I have copied below.
ANZAC is the acronym formed from the initial letters of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, the formation into which Australian and New Zealand soldiers were grouped in Egypt prior to the landing at Gallipoli in April 1915.
First written as A. & N. Z. Army Corps, it soon became A. N. Z. A. C. and the new word was so obvious that the full stops were omitted. The word was initially used to refer to the cove where the Australians and New Zealanders landed and soon after, to the men themselves. An ANZAC was a man who was at the Landing and who fought at Gallipoli, but later it came to mean any Australian or New Zealand soldier of the First World War. An ANZAC who served at Gallipoli was given an A badge which was attached to his colour patch.
Following the allied withdrawal from Gallipoli and the expansion of Australian and New Zealand forces in Egypt early in 1916, the ANZAC was split into two new formations called I ANZAC Corps and II ANZAC Corps – despite the repetition of the word Corps in their name. These formations, I ANZAC Corps comprising three Australian divisions and II ANZAC Corps made up of the 4th and 5th Australian divisions and the New Zealand Division, were transferred to France and fought on the Western Front until 1917, when the five Australian formations were grouped into a single Australian Corps. Also in March 1916, the ANZAC Mounted Division was formed from three Australian Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade for service in Sinai and Palestine. In 1916 – 1917 a joint signals unit, the 1st (ANZAC) Wireless Signal Squadron, operated with the British expeditionary force in Mesopotamia (now Iraq).
Obviously 2-1 is a small consensus so I have brought this here for more comments, thoughts or to build a greater consensus one way or the other. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jim. Can you point to the existing discussion on this? Ta, Ranger Steve Talk 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Main discussion was Talk:Battle of Romani Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Without having followed the sources, what tends to happen in A/NZ is that initially ANZAC become Anzac through repetition - for example Anzac biscuit. This may or may not have ocurred in this case. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
G'day, to me this is a complex issue and one that I don't think it is really possible to answer definitively. When I wrote I Anzac Corps, I used "Anzac", however, it has since been moved to I ANZAC Corps. I'm not wedded to either and in my experience there is much variance across the many sources out there. As such, I don't believe that there is any basis for categorically rejecting either approach. Of course, consistency is important and as such, in the interests of solving the issue, my suggestion is to follow the presentation style of the Australian official histories of World War I. [12] PS, I haven't checked what style is employed there. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This comes up a few times a year on various pages (often WT:AUSTRALIA). It's important to note that there is no single correct capitalisation, and both 'ANZAC' and 'Anzac' are entirely appropriate in different circumstances. For instance, while the Australian Army has had several units with ANZAC in their names, the Royal Australian Navy has had no less than three ships named HMAS Anzac! The Australian Government has protected the word so it can only be used in certain circumstances, and the regulation for this used Anzac. Previous discussions which might be helpful include Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 33#ANZAC or Anzac? and Talk:ANZAC#Requested move. I'd go with the Australian War Memorial's usage, which is clearly 'ANZAC Mounted Division' as it's likely to reflect the balance of the sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The Official history uses ANZAC for the corps and Anzac for the men, the cove, and the biscuits. Its British counterpart uses Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division throughout. I think the use of ANZAC in capitals is a misunderstanding. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
END OF DISCUSSION COPIED FROM MILITARY HISTORY PROJECT DISCUSSION PAGE -----------------------------------
Myself and User:Jim Sweeney have recently made a considerable number of edits to Battle of Romani in an attempt to improve it. However, I note that most of the time you revert these edits and have made no less than 9 reversions to this article in a two day period on 1 and 2 December, including reverting one bot edit (difs here [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19]). I have already reminded you about the provisions of WP:OWN. Once again I would ask you to allow other users to make constructive edits to this and other articles. Also please remember that non controversial edits, such as grammer and punctuation and the addition of redlinks, do not need to be discussed. So please do not simply revert these improvements. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
What makes Germancolonialuniforms.co.uk. a reliable site - this appears to be a personal web site. The author of which admits to making mistakes, and recommends contacting him to check his sources are accurate. See below
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
"These lists have been compiled from several sources (listed below). The different sources do not always agree. I have tried to follow original German sources of the period, and where not available have followed the general consensus of opinion. Please email me here if you have more accurate information"
Then the following list of sources includes 'Unit List Sources- Pascha I and II "Die Schlachten und Gefechte des Großen Krieges 1914-1918" compiled by the German General Staff "The German Army in World War I" (Pt3) by Nigel Thomas "Megiddo 1918" by Bryan Perrett The contributions of Shawn USAF1986 and Peter H on the Axis History Forum - Asienkorps The further researches of Chris Flaherty Wikipedia pages in English and German.'
There is nothing like this depth of research reflected in any other sources I have seen regarding this theatre of WW1. Although normally, I would agree that web sites should not be used in Wiki articles, but this one is used very sparingly, and provides information not otherwise available. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Why does this GA article continue (for at least the last 10 days) to have this tag, which implies the article needs improvement, attached? I'm sure its not in as great a need of improvement, as many others, which have not been awarded GA status. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
There is such incredible detail here, very impressive, only information missing is what the Anzacs had for beeakfast each day and who they made battle with. It is almost as if British were out there fighting ghosts. No significant detail about the Ottomans, their leaders, generals, policies and politics in the background, and their fighting conditions. I understand this is English language Wikipedia, but is it also all English Wikipedia? Are all world facts only English, not just in English? Was it that difficult to find some Turkish or German references? One would think those who put in this much effort into this would try a bit harder to try to do a better job at balanced coverage and analysis. A pattern I have noticed in many other related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.159.236 ( talk) 14:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Romani. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Battle of Romani has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 5, 2012, August 5, 2014, August 5, 2016, August 5, 2018, August 5, 2020, and August 5, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Currently Romani is a disambig that doesn't even mention a town of such a name...? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There is an unsourced description of the battle which I would like to edit to incorporate Powles view. Are there any disagreements to this project?-- RoslynSKP ( talk) 03:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The British Army in the First World War did not use infantry in its formation names. Its 53rd (Welsh) Division not 53rd (Welsh) Infantry Division. Brigades had a unique name in most cases 126th (East Lancashire) Brigade , not 126th Infantry Brigade. Those without a unique name just used 1st Brigade etc. Persons names should be in full when first used Winston Spencer Churchill not W.S. Churchill for example. The ANZAC Mounted Division is an acronym Anzac is wrong, ANZAC should be used or its full name Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. The British Empire is used throughout the article, and in the info box, so there is no need to list the parts of the empire involved, note the same is never applied to the Ottoman/German side of the inf box. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 08:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The ANZAC Acronym
ANZAC is the acronym formed from the initial letters of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, the formation into which Australian and New Zealand soldiers were grouped in Egypt prior to the landing at Gallipoli in April 1915.
First written as A. & N. Z. Army Corps, it soon became A. N. Z. A. C. and the new word was so obvious that the full stops were omitted. The word was initially used to refer to the cove where the Australians and New Zealanders landed and soon after, to the men themselves. An ANZAC was a man who was at the Landing and who fought at Gallipoli, but later it came to mean any Australian or New Zealand soldier of the First World War. An ANZAC who served at Gallipoli was given an A badge which was attached to his colour patch.
Following the allied withdrawal from Gallipoli and the expansion of Australian and New Zealand forces in Egypt early in 1916, the ANZAC was split into two new formations called I ANZAC Corps and II ANZAC Corps – despite the repetition of the word Corps in their name. These formations, I ANZAC Corps comprising three Australian divisions and II ANZAC Corps made up of the 4th and 5th Australian divisions and the New Zealand Division, were transferred to France and fought on the Western Front until 1917, when the five Australian formations were grouped into a single Australian Corps. Also in March 1916, the ANZAC Mounted Division was formed from three Australian Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade for service in Sinai and Palestine. In 1916 – 1917 a joint signals unit, the 1st (ANZAC) Wireless Signal Squadron, operated with the British expeditionary force in Mesopotamia (now Iraq). Jim Sweeney ( talk) 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I have a number of concerns about the neutrality of this article, which although relatively minor have been reverted when I have attempted to fix them myself, and as such remain an issue IMO. Specifically:
Hello all. There is currently a red link to the 4th Ottoman Army. IMO, this could be linked to Fourth Army (Ottoman Empire). For what it is worth, IMO, there is nothing wrong with red links, so long as they are to notable topics. Units such as the Australian light horse regiments are notable, IMO, because of the coverage they have received. For instance, there are full WWI histories of them available here: [6]; these, along with a book or two, would allow for a decent article to be written on them, thus making them notable. I would hazard that divisional sized organisations in the Ottoman Army would also be notable, although probably their coverage in English would not be as extensive. At the end of the day, though, it is not necessarily the size of a unit that determines notability, but in fact the level of sourcing. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to jump in - and please note that I'm saying this as an uninvolved admin - could I suggest that everyone involved in this series of disputes steps away from articles on this theater of World War I for a few days? (for instance, until this Friday). I'm seeing several very good editors at each other's throats over these disagreements, and it's not doing anyone any good (Jim and Rskp, you could have been blocked for the edit war which was going on here before the page was protected). I'd also suggest that rather than thrash out the (roughly) same set of issues on several articles that you start a centralised discussion at WT:MILHIST or through a request for comment. But a break from the disagreement would be a good first step. Nick-D ( talk) 10:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Where there has been substance or value in their edits I have welcomed their contributions. But where there is no substance or value, I have not and will not. So many red links detract from this article, they do not improve it. -- Rskp ( talk) 00:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently the bibliography lists the fol:
However as near as I can tell only "3rd LHB War Diary 10 April 1916 AWM 4,10/3/15" is used as an inline citation (footnote 9). As such the rest should be removed to a "Further reading" section. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
As above I have expressed concern about the use of out of date sources, I therefore summarise my concerns as such:
While I agree that a number of the older sources are important works in the field, particularly the official histories, the overall age of the bulk of the sources relied upon indicates to me that the article is unlikely to reflect the body of research currently available, which is one of the key GA criteria. Indeed many are 70 to 90 years old, and as a consequence I am left to draw the conclusion that more recent sources really should be more thoroughly consulted. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
There appear to be a number of errors in the citation used:
Unless I missed something these need to be added to the Bibliography/corrected. Anotherclown ( talk) 07:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division has been used to prevent edit war between ANZAC and Anzac. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Another concern that I have about this article is its lack of focus. Indeed while it purports to be about the Battle of Romani (4–5 August 1916), it seems to cover significantly more ground that this. Indeed approxiamately half of the article deals with events that occurred on 5–12 August. Whilst these events are certainly relevant, they should really be covered in far less detail by being condensed and moved into the aftermath section per WP:MILMOS/C. If they are sufficiently notable a parent article could be started to cover this period in detail.
An examination of the article structure might illustrate the point:
1 Background
2 Prelude
3 Battle on 4 August
4 Battle on 5 August
5 Chauvel's force advance on Ottoman rearguards
6 Action of Bir el Abd – 9 to 12 August
7 Aftermath
IMO sections 5 and 6 really do not belong in the "Battle" section at all as they occurred, yet they have been treated as though they were apart of it. As such I have to question if it really meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria number 3: Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Anotherclown ( talk) 20:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The following was inserted in this article - {{clarify|Both brigades were in the 18th (Eastern) Division and only served in France. ANSWER: Please check your source. Infantry in the 53rd and 54th Divisions attacked Gaza in March 1917 see [[First Battle of Gaza]] Falls states these machine gun companies were in Egypt at this time. What is your reference? - the clarification is the numbers given for the brigades - not the machine gun companies |date=December 2011}} Yes, I understand that its the 53rd and 54th Divisions which you dispute being in the Sinai and Palestine. This seems a clash of sources. But cutting the reference to the 53rd and 54th Infantry Brigades means the article has been degraded by cutting valid verifiable information. [8] The reference used to include the 53rd and 54th Divisions is Falls 1930 Vol. 1 page 181. I will be reinserting mention of these two divisions while waiting to hear what sources place them on the western front for the entire war.-- Rskp ( talk) 02:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the official name given to the campaign by the British Parliament some 90 years ago. Since then this campaign has been known by those names. How can that be POV? Is the huge memorial near Ismailia on the Suez Canal to those who fought in the Defence of the Suez Canal campaign POV? Anotherclown please recognise an official source is not POV - this is the English language Wikipedia after all.-- Rskp ( talk) 02:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok so now we have "Part of Sinai and Palestine Campaign also known as the; Offensive zur Eroberung des Suezkanals (German); İkinci Kanal Harekâtı (Turkish)" in the infobox, which is definately better than what you had previously which we have now clearly established was reflective of British POV. However, the issue I see here now is twofold: one is that there is now too much unneccesary infomation in the infobox and two that most people on English wikipedia cannot read German or Turkish. IMO the German and Turkish names for the Sinai and Palestine campaign should definately be included in the parent article if they are not already (but including their English translation per the WP:MOS). It is my assertion that there really is no need for them here, as the focus of this article is just a battle of that campaign not the campaign itself. The infobox for this article can just say Sinai and Palestine campaign or Middle Eastern theatre of World War I as either would be acceptable for NPOV. Now if we know the German and Turkish names for the Battle of Romani then they should definately be included here. Thoughts? Anotherclown ( talk) 21:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The following has been copied and pasted from the Military History Project discussion page archives for the benefit of the continued discussion regarding the name of this mounted division. [10]
Hi there has been a dispute in several articles over the term ANZAC. Mostly associated with the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. One user insists it should be Anzac Mounted Division, two have agreed it should be ANZAC. The compromise of using the full Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division to prevent an edit war has been rejected by one user.
ANZAC is the correct name used by the Australian War Memorial, see here [10] and here [11] it details the use of the acronym which I have copied below.
ANZAC is the acronym formed from the initial letters of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, the formation into which Australian and New Zealand soldiers were grouped in Egypt prior to the landing at Gallipoli in April 1915.
First written as A. & N. Z. Army Corps, it soon became A. N. Z. A. C. and the new word was so obvious that the full stops were omitted. The word was initially used to refer to the cove where the Australians and New Zealanders landed and soon after, to the men themselves. An ANZAC was a man who was at the Landing and who fought at Gallipoli, but later it came to mean any Australian or New Zealand soldier of the First World War. An ANZAC who served at Gallipoli was given an A badge which was attached to his colour patch.
Following the allied withdrawal from Gallipoli and the expansion of Australian and New Zealand forces in Egypt early in 1916, the ANZAC was split into two new formations called I ANZAC Corps and II ANZAC Corps – despite the repetition of the word Corps in their name. These formations, I ANZAC Corps comprising three Australian divisions and II ANZAC Corps made up of the 4th and 5th Australian divisions and the New Zealand Division, were transferred to France and fought on the Western Front until 1917, when the five Australian formations were grouped into a single Australian Corps. Also in March 1916, the ANZAC Mounted Division was formed from three Australian Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade for service in Sinai and Palestine. In 1916 – 1917 a joint signals unit, the 1st (ANZAC) Wireless Signal Squadron, operated with the British expeditionary force in Mesopotamia (now Iraq).
Obviously 2-1 is a small consensus so I have brought this here for more comments, thoughts or to build a greater consensus one way or the other. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jim. Can you point to the existing discussion on this? Ta, Ranger Steve Talk 17:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Main discussion was Talk:Battle of Romani Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Without having followed the sources, what tends to happen in A/NZ is that initially ANZAC become Anzac through repetition - for example Anzac biscuit. This may or may not have ocurred in this case. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
G'day, to me this is a complex issue and one that I don't think it is really possible to answer definitively. When I wrote I Anzac Corps, I used "Anzac", however, it has since been moved to I ANZAC Corps. I'm not wedded to either and in my experience there is much variance across the many sources out there. As such, I don't believe that there is any basis for categorically rejecting either approach. Of course, consistency is important and as such, in the interests of solving the issue, my suggestion is to follow the presentation style of the Australian official histories of World War I. [12] PS, I haven't checked what style is employed there. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This comes up a few times a year on various pages (often WT:AUSTRALIA). It's important to note that there is no single correct capitalisation, and both 'ANZAC' and 'Anzac' are entirely appropriate in different circumstances. For instance, while the Australian Army has had several units with ANZAC in their names, the Royal Australian Navy has had no less than three ships named HMAS Anzac! The Australian Government has protected the word so it can only be used in certain circumstances, and the regulation for this used Anzac. Previous discussions which might be helpful include Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 33#ANZAC or Anzac? and Talk:ANZAC#Requested move. I'd go with the Australian War Memorial's usage, which is clearly 'ANZAC Mounted Division' as it's likely to reflect the balance of the sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The Official history uses ANZAC for the corps and Anzac for the men, the cove, and the biscuits. Its British counterpart uses Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division throughout. I think the use of ANZAC in capitals is a misunderstanding. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
END OF DISCUSSION COPIED FROM MILITARY HISTORY PROJECT DISCUSSION PAGE -----------------------------------
Myself and User:Jim Sweeney have recently made a considerable number of edits to Battle of Romani in an attempt to improve it. However, I note that most of the time you revert these edits and have made no less than 9 reversions to this article in a two day period on 1 and 2 December, including reverting one bot edit (difs here [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] and [19]). I have already reminded you about the provisions of WP:OWN. Once again I would ask you to allow other users to make constructive edits to this and other articles. Also please remember that non controversial edits, such as grammer and punctuation and the addition of redlinks, do not need to be discussed. So please do not simply revert these improvements. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
What makes Germancolonialuniforms.co.uk. a reliable site - this appears to be a personal web site. The author of which admits to making mistakes, and recommends contacting him to check his sources are accurate. See below
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
"These lists have been compiled from several sources (listed below). The different sources do not always agree. I have tried to follow original German sources of the period, and where not available have followed the general consensus of opinion. Please email me here if you have more accurate information"
Then the following list of sources includes 'Unit List Sources- Pascha I and II "Die Schlachten und Gefechte des Großen Krieges 1914-1918" compiled by the German General Staff "The German Army in World War I" (Pt3) by Nigel Thomas "Megiddo 1918" by Bryan Perrett The contributions of Shawn USAF1986 and Peter H on the Axis History Forum - Asienkorps The further researches of Chris Flaherty Wikipedia pages in English and German.'
There is nothing like this depth of research reflected in any other sources I have seen regarding this theatre of WW1. Although normally, I would agree that web sites should not be used in Wiki articles, but this one is used very sparingly, and provides information not otherwise available. -- Rskp ( talk) 01:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Why does this GA article continue (for at least the last 10 days) to have this tag, which implies the article needs improvement, attached? I'm sure its not in as great a need of improvement, as many others, which have not been awarded GA status. -- Rskp ( talk) 04:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
There is such incredible detail here, very impressive, only information missing is what the Anzacs had for beeakfast each day and who they made battle with. It is almost as if British were out there fighting ghosts. No significant detail about the Ottomans, their leaders, generals, policies and politics in the background, and their fighting conditions. I understand this is English language Wikipedia, but is it also all English Wikipedia? Are all world facts only English, not just in English? Was it that difficult to find some Turkish or German references? One would think those who put in this much effort into this would try a bit harder to try to do a better job at balanced coverage and analysis. A pattern I have noticed in many other related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.159.236 ( talk) 14:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Romani. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)