Talk:15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade/Archive 1

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

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 12:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

  • Given that several aspects of this article are now being disputed by another editor I will be placing this review on hold for a week to get some stability in the article before I start (although the timing of the dispute immediately after the GA review commenced seems instructive to me).
  1. By way of explanation of the timing of my interest in this article. The development of this article became known as the brigade is mentioned in other articles. On checking on an article I have up for GAR today, I saw this was also up for GAR. As another article has just been awarded GAR I had some time today to take a closer look. I've only glanced at the infobox and first sentences, but several problems became immediately obvious which I highlighted by adding dubious tags. These tags were cut without any acknowledgement of the problems. So they have been added to the talk page. --Rskp (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment Relying heavily on one brigade history has produced a thin and narrow article. Lack of understanding of the context within which the brigade served has produced a misleading infobox. Discussion on the talk page has failed to fix these problems. --Rskp (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
This has been thoroughly discussed and its only your opinion. Current consensus does not support your concern. Anotherclown (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyway what you really mean when you write "...discussion on the talk page has failed to fix these problems..." is that no one has agreed with you. There is a distinct difference. Anotherclown (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Some initial comments though from very briefly skimming the article:
  • As an act of parliament "Indian Army Act" should include a date (if available) and be italicised.
Italics added the date would be 1860 but as its not in the source I hesitate to add it. Also the act was changed during the years, 1860 - 1901 - 1911 for the years covering the article.
  • A couple of refences are missing place of publishing.
 Done
  • Capitalisation is a little off here: Sharma, Gautam (1996). Nationalisation Of The Indian Army (1885–1947). Allied Publishers. ISBN 9788170235552. Fairly sure per title case it should be "Nationalisation of the Indian Army".
 Done
  • "British Indian Army Special Service Officers (S.S.O)", fairly sure we abbrev without full stops, i.e. "SSO". See MOS:ABBR.
Yes done I did expect this one to be honest.

Anotherclown (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

All done I believe Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Progression

  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

Criteria

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • This could probably be more exact: "The 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade also known as the Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade, was a brigade-sized formation that served alongside British Empire forces in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, during the First World War." Specifically the "also known" part. My understanding is that it was originally formed as the Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade so the lead could possibly be re-worked to make that more clear. For example:
      • "The 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade was a brigade-sized formation that served alongside British Empire forces in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, during the First World War. Originally formed as the Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade, it was formed from Imperial Service Troops provided by the Indian Princely States of Hyderabad, Mysore, Patiala and Jodhpur, which each provided a cavalry regiment. A maximum of three regiments served in the brigade at any one time. The states of Bhavnagar, Kashmir, Kathiawar and Idar provided smaller detachments for the brigade, which was at times reinforced by other British Empire regiments and artillery batteries when on operations." Or something similar.
        • Changed text
    • This seems a little awkward to me: "In 1888, the Indian government proposed that the independent armies of the Indian Princely states provide troops for the British Empire for service on the North West Frontier and outside the Indian subcontinent." Consider instead: "In 1888, the Indian government proposed that the independent armies of the Indian Princely states provide the British Empire with troops for service on the North West Frontier and outside the Indian subcontinent."
      • Agreed changed text
    • This could probably also be tightened: "...the Indian Government appointed a staff of officers designated Military Advisers and Assistant Military Advisers to assist the independent states' rulers in training and the organisation of their forces." Consider instead: "...the Indian Government appointed a staff of officers designated Military Advisers and Assistant Military Advisers to assist the independent states' rulers in the training and organisation of their forces."
      • Changed text
    • "Imperial Service Troops were commanded by Indian officers. In contrast, British Indian Army units had British officers in all senior command posts; their own Indian Viceroy's commissioned officers were trained to only a troop or platoon level of command." The distinction between Imperial Service Troops and British Indian Army might be made to better effect if you switched this around. Consider instead: "Wheras British Indian Army units had British officers in all senior command posts and their own Indian Viceroy's commissioned officers were trained to only a troop or platoon level of command, in contrast Imperial Service Troops were commanded by Indian officers." (this is a suggestion only - its ok as it was).
      • Left as is
    • Inconsistent presentation of "Indian Government", sometimes you write "Indian government".
      • Changed to upper case
    • Is there a word missing here or punctuation? "The Kathiawar Imperial Service Signal Troop, commanded by Captain Henry St. George Scott 4th Gurkha Rifles...", specifically between "Scott" and "4th Gurkha Rifles".
      • Yes changed text
    • Same here: "...commanded by Captain T O'Leary Indian Army Medical Corps..."
      • Changed text
    • Some inconsistency in the presentation of numbers: for instance "seven officers and forty-seven men", but then "thirty-two officers (one British) and 487 other ranks" (and many other instances). Unless I'm missing something generally figures over ten should be writen in digits (i.e. 10), see WP:MOSNUM.
      • As I understand WP:ORDINAL, it considers three separate cases;
  1. numbers from zero to nine, which are normally spelled out in words
  2. numbers greater than nine that would require more than two words to spell out; these are normally rendered in numerals
  3. numbers that are greater than nine that would only need one or two words to spell out; these can be either spelled out in words or rendered as numerals.

No worries the policy is a little greyer than I thought. If you're happy with it I am too (I just follow the numbers greater than 9 use digits rule - the military mind craves consistency)! Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

    • "...by amalgamating the three cavalry regiments machine gun sections into one unit...", should be: "...by amalgamating the three cavalry regiment's machine gun sections into one unit..."
      • Changed
    • This doesn't seem quite right to me: "Even though this was an Imperial Service unit...", consider instead: "Even though the brigade was an Imperial Service unit..."
      • Changed text
    • Not possessive: "but only as advisor's", should be: "but only as advisors"
      • Changed text
    • Should "Regimentdar B Chamraj Urs Bahadur" be "Regimentdar B. Chamraj Urs Bahadur", with a period placed after the "B". I'm assuming this is an abbreviation of his first name? If so there are a couple of other examples of this.
      • Changed . added
        • Not sure about this its
    • This seems a little awkward to me: "Between 27 and 29 October the brigade moved to Bombay for embarkation; six transport ships carrying most of the brigade sailed on 1 November and a seventh ship carrying two squadrons of Mysore Lancers remained behind with mechanical problems and finally set sail a fortnight later." Consider perhaps: "Between 27 and 29 October the brigade moved to Bombay for embarkation; six transport ships carrying most of the brigade sailed on 1 November, while a seventh ship carrying two squadrons of Mysore Lancers remained behind with mechanical problems and finally set sail a fortnight later."
      • Changed
    • Terminology here: "The main part of the brigade...", consider instead: "The main body of the brigade..."
      • Changed
    • Is this right: "under command of General Head Quarters...", my dictionary says headquarters is one word?
      • So does mine changed
    • "The Bikaner Camel Corps, another Imperial Service unit, was attached to the brigade at Ismailia for administrative purposes, and was not operationally attached." Consider instead: "The Bikaner Camel Corps, another Imperial Service unit, was attached to the brigade at Ismailia for administrative purposes, but was not operationally attached." (minor nitpick - suggestion only)
      • No reads better so changed
    • "The other British forces defending the canal were more static infantry formations, comprising the 42nd (East Lancashire), the 10th Indian and the 11th Indian Divisions...", this might be worded more economically like this: "The other British forces defending the canal were more static infantry formations, comprising the 42nd (East Lancashire), and the 10th and 11th Indian Divisions..."
      • Changed
    • This is also a little awkwardly worded for mine: "The attempt failed and on 4 February the brigade with infantry support moved into the Sinai." Consider: "The attempt failed and on 4 February the brigade moved into the Sinai with infantry support."
      • Changed
    • "The brigade's next action was on 22 March when two Hyderabad Lancers squadrons..." → "The brigade's next action was on 22 March when two squadrons of Hyderabad Lancers..."
      • Changed
    • Should "lancers" be capitalised here: "it had been intended that the lancers..."?
      • Changed
    • "...and a newer version of Lee-Enfield Rifles...", consider instead: "...and a newer version of the Lee-Enfield Rifle..."
      • Changed
    • This should be possessive: "By 13:00 the brigade was north of Gaza when the Mysore Lancers leading squadron...", i.e. "Mysore Lancer's leading sqauadron..."
      • Changed
    • "Lancers" should probably be capitalised here: "...the rest of the lancers attacked, capturing the Wadi Safieh line."
      • Changed
    • And here: "The lancers, still under artillery fire..."
      • Changed
    • Some inconsistency in use of "machine gun" and "machine-gun", either is acceptable.
      • Caught two changed to machine-gun
    • "capturing two artillery guns" or "artillery pieces" (minor nitpick - suggestion only)
      • Yes as we both know pieces is correct - I was thinking of the less military knowledgeable, who may think it was wrong.
    • Multiple issues here: "In early January, the brigade trained and re-equipped, which included the first issue of bayonets to the lancers." Consider instead: "In early January 1918, the brigade trained and re-equipped, which included the first issue of bayonets to the Lancers."
      • Changed
    • "On 11 May, the Jodhpur Lancer were assigned..." → "On 11 May, the Jodhpur Lancers were assigned..."
      • Changed
    • Capitalisation here: "The lancers charged towards the railway line, but the terrain forced them to move to their left into a wadi, which was impassable and forced the lancers even further left."
      • Changed
    • "The squadron mounted and charged those Turkish positions...", consider instead: "The squadron mounted and charged the Turkish positions..."
      • Changed
    • Missing word here: "...and 11:00 the brigade resumed their advance."
      • Changed
    • Punctuation here: "...responsible for guarding their own and the Australian Mounted Divisions transport columns." Should be "...responsible for guarding their own and the Australian Mounted Division's transport columns."
      • Changed
    • Some commas missing here I think: "The next day 2 October was the day that British Empire forces officially entered Damascus."
      • Added
    • "...the brigade advance did not resume until 05:30 5 October." Consider instead: "...the brigade advance did not resume until 05:30 on 5 October."
      • Changed
    • Several issues here: "The next day Lieutenant-Colonel Holden a SSO with the Jodhpur Lancers became the..." Firstly there needs to be commas between Holden and Lancers → "The next day Lieutenant-Colonel Holden, a SSO with the Jodhpur Lancers, became the...". Also do we know Holden's first name? If so it should be added.
      • Changed name was Hyla Napier Holden
    • "Brigadier Harbord ordered an immediate brigade attack...", should just be "Harbord ordered an immediate brigade attack...", removing rank after formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
      • Changed
    • Capitalisation here: "At 12:00 the lancers charged the Turkish position..."
      • Changed
    • "...including Lieutenant-Colonel Holden SSO attached to the Jodhpur Lancers...", consider instead: "including Holden..." per WP:SURNAME
      • Changed
    • I think bullets should probably be used in the lists in the "Formation" section.
      • Changed
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • All major points cited using WP:RS.
    • HMSO 1920 accepted as a reliable source given current community consensus here [6] and here [7].
    • Although the article relies quite heavily on the HMSO 1920 source as the unit history it seems logical to do so, and it would likely be one of the more detailed sources available on the subject despite its age.
    • Consistent citation style used throughout.
    • No issues with OR.
    • Some issues with the presentation of references:
      • These need to use title case
        • Preston, Richard Martin (1921). The Desert Mounted Corps: an account of the cavalry operations in Palestine and Syria, 1917-1918. London: Constable and Company Limited. ISBN 9781146758833.
        • Punja, Shobita (1990). An illustrated guide to museums of India. Michigan: Guidebook Company Ltd. ISBN 9789622171435.
      • "Ltd" should not be used, i.e "Guidebook Company Ltd" should just be "Guidebook Company".
      • You should use the "volume" and "series" fields in the cite templates as they are currently not presented correctly (examples include Duckers, Gudmundsson, Roy and Sumner).
        • Changes made
    • Could references be added to the "Commanders" and "Units attached" sections? Anotherclown (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
    • This brief sentence could probably have more detail added: "With the war over, the brigade returned to India and was disbanded." Specifically do we know when they returned?
      • Unfortunately not its not mentioned in any source, the nearest thing I could find was that two of the divisions brigades (unnamed) remained for a short time in Syria in a police role. I have just located in the National Archives the brigade headquarters page dated 1918 July - 1919 November that would suggest it at least existed to then. But is that enough to say it was disbanded then? [8]
        • No I agree we shouldn't speculate. Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "...and the regiment's part in its capture was recognised by the British government, which awarded them the battle honour Megiddo...", which regiment?
      • It was both of them so changed
    • One additional point here: you list the strength of each component of the brigade in the text, which is fine and state that it was made up of three regiments each of four squadrons. I wonder if it would be helpful to our readers if the rough overall establishment of the entire brigade (and also include this in the infobox)? Save them having to add up the totals. Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Total added to inf box
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • Overall I see no major issues here, although use of the word "Turkish" has been challenged by another editor with preference for use of "Ottoman" instead. Given that "Turkish" is used in numerous reliable sources I personnally see that either term could be used interchangably as long as its done with internal consistancy. Regardless this issue is currently under discussion on the talk page and as this review is on hold we can afford to wait to see if some consensus develops.
    • Words like "enemy" can be problematic and are easily avoided. For instance "By the end of 1914, no contact had been made with any enemy forces." Consider instead "By the end of 1914, no contact had been made with Turkish forces."
      • Changed
    • Probably also best to watch "Turk" which is used in a number of places. Could also easily be replaced to avoid any concerns here.
      • Think I have caught and changed them all
        • Yep got them all I think - its more that as a colloquial abbreviation its seems a little "iffy" to me thats all. Probably best to avoid. Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • Some elements of the article are currently in dispute. Edits will be monitored whilst the review is on hold.
      • Despite some initial concerns the article appears to be stable. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
    • Images used appear to be in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.
    • File:Group of Imperial Service Troops.jpg might need a PD-US tag, not sure though.
      • Not sure either but added one anyway
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
    • Overall this article seems quite good to me, although there are a few issues to resolve IRT prose, grammer and MOS. The review remains on hold for 7 days to allow the issues currently in dispute to be discussed. Anotherclown (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • All done I believe. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Looking good so far. I'm going to have another read just to make sure I didn't miss anything. Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
          • I've completed a copy edit and made a couple of tweaks to the Infobox (mainly presentation). I also changed the "Aftermath" section to "Disbandment". If you disagree with any of these edits pls revert.
          • I've marked a few sections complete now, a couple still need to be addressed though. Pls have a look above.

Couple of final suggestions:

  • Seperate the formation section into seperate second level sections for "Order of battle" (to include the "units attached" and "units assigned") and "Commanders".
  • Add dates to these sections for each units assignment/attachment. Anotherclown (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Done Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • In my opinion the article in its current state now meets the GA criteria so I'm passing it. The review has remained on hold for 5 days which seems more than sufficient. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Error 1

Listed as part of the command structure are three divisions the brigade was briefly attached to during active military operations while other units which the brigade was part of are not mentioned. --Rskp (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If there are some that are not mentioned what are they and can you provide a source?Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You will need to research the command structure more thoroughly. In the meantime it is incorrect to list units the brigade was briefly attached to whilst on active service. --Rskp (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't need to research anything, your the one saying something is missing. Where is the policy stating it incorrect to list higher formations a brigade was attached to? Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If the Bde was attached to multiple formations I don't see the issue with listing those formations, although it might clarify the situation if the dates were included in brackets. See for example - 1st Light Horse Brigade. Would this work? Anotherclown (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The section of the infobox is about command structure. As it stands the information is misleading. --Rskp (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • For your information: "command_structure – optional – the larger unit(s) of which the unit is a part. This should not be used to provide an exhaustive history of the unit, which is more appropriate in the article itself, for units existing over a long period. For complicated cases, using the auxiliary command structure box may be appropriate." The addition of the Imperial, Australian Mounted Divisions and the XXI Corps are misleading temporary attachments during activer service. --Rskp (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Exhaustive history IMO would be to add dates - brigades are often attached to different higher formations coming under their command. To list them is not misleading but accurate. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
They don't mean less than a week. --Rskp (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Who are they as mentioned above? and you still have not responded to your first complaint that other units which the brigade was part of are not mentioned. What were they? Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't have time to do the research needed at the moment. Sorry. I haven't even had a chance to read the article in full yet. But I suggest you look at what was happening in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign when its claimed by a dubious source the brigade was temporarily attached. Also the war diaries of the units its claimed the brigade was attached to will tell you how long the attachments lasted. I've provided the link to one operation. Sorry I can't do more at the moment. --Rskp (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • So you don't really know if there is an error, you just think there might be? Hardly seems a sufficient basis to slap a bunch of "dubious" tags on an article. Once again unless you provide some actual evidence of an error as the GA reviewer I will be assuming good faith of the principle author and the sources provided. Anotherclown (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
As it stands the article will be much improved by clearly identifying what is meant by an attachment. How long was it for, why did it occur etc. I see Jim Sweeney has started looking into the war diaries. I hope the information found will be added to improve the article. --Rskp (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
So there was no error after all. If you felt a source could have been added to strengthen the research you could have just said that in the first place with a simple note on the talk page rather than claiming there was an error and tagging the article. Given the history here that would seem to be less confrontational. Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Dubious source

The "HMSO 1920" source is dubious. It is anonymously written, does not cite any sources nor does it provide a list of references. --Rskp (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This as you are well aware has already been discussed (Talk:Charge at Haritan#dubious source) and consensus reached that it is an official publication. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't need a consensus to tell its a British Stationary Office publication that is given in the references section. But where a source is published does not make up for a lack of author and a lack of any indication on what documents the publication is based. --Rskp (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
So what your saying is that you are unwilling to accept the community decision. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Could it have been authored by the India Office? It seems to be one of their official records. As an official document I can't see any reason to assume its unreliable, and at the very least it is probably sufficient to be used as a reference about details of unit composition, equipment, commanders, locations, dates, activities etc. Probably in many ways its similar to official unit War Diaries which seem to be used quite extensively in many articles in this area (including many written by yourself Rskp). Indeed one assumes that such diaries are probably the primary source of this document, although that is speculation on my part. Regardless this issue has indeed already been discussed (as pointed out above) and a consensus does seem to have been reached so its a non issue as far as I can tell (as someone uninvolved in that discussion). If you still have an issue with it raise it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Anotherclown (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Who knows Anotherclown? There is no evidence to support your comments. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Nor yours it seems. As I said above take it to the appropriate place if you actually have a legitimate concern. Anotherclown (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
      • This article relies too heavily on an anonymous source which does not cite any sources does not mention any war diaries, is the only source for the attachment of the brigade to the Imperial Mounted Division, the Australian Mounted Division and the XXI Corps. This old 1920's anonymous source which has never been reprinted, is heavily used throughout this article when there are many more modern and credible sources by identified authors available. Among them Wavell 1933 highly influential publication was still being reprinted in 1968, Falls 1930 official history which has been heavily relied on and cited by historians throughout the years and more recently by Bruce, Woodward, and Keogh. ALL these five publications are by identified authors who have quoted references which they have identified and listed. --Rskp (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd point out that Unit War Diaries are anonymous sources too so the importance you seem to place on them seems inconsistent. Regardless, the reliability of the source in question has already been discussed and established. Unless you intend on taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard this is a dead end. That said you mention the absence of a number of more recent sources (1930 and 1933, and a few others like Bruce, Woodward and Keogh), but do any of them deal with this unit in detail (I honestly don't know but since you mention them perhaps you can answer that question)? One assumes the unit history (i.e. the 1920's India Office unit history) would treat the subject in more detail than global sources such as the offical history which is hardly going to devote much space to the history of a Bde. As such it seems to me to be quite valid to rely heavily on the unit history in an article such as this, regardless of its vintage. Are you aware of any inconsistency between the source used and the ones you mention? If so then that would seem a valid concern and would need to be addressed, otherwise if they don't mention the formation in detail, or there is no inconsistency, its another non-issue. Anotherclown (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
          • My understanding is that the reprinting of WWI unit histories is a fairly recent move, aiming to cater to the amateur-historian/WWI-genealogy community, and as such it's to be expected that they'd focus on republishing material with a larger market. Note that most war diaries haven't been reprinted, whilst broader regiment/division secondary histories usually have. Predominantly Indian brigades with relatively obscure histories seem less of a priority for them, in that regard...
...but I wouldn't be surprised if a print-on-demand copy turns up anyway, now we've made a PD digital version available ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Anotherclown. War Diaries are not anonymous sources they are signed by the officer who wrote them together with their rank. The problem with this brigade history its used as the only reference for attachments to other units which in the case of the Second Transjordan attack - 4 May was probably for an afternoon, to reinforce the last leg of the rearguard of the EEF force's withdrawal back behind the bridgeheads.--Rskp (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Tangent as usual. Of course the Duty Officer/Watchkeeper or the unit ADJT usually writes the War Diary entry each day (in my experience of an infantry battalion at war anyway). But how are they more authorative than the unit history as produced after the war by the India Office or the unit itself (which of course would have used the war diary as one of its sources along with much other official material not available in the public domain). Indeed such officers would probably have been one and the same. But all of this is irrelevant of course. I asked several questions above which you have of course ignored. You mentioned a number of books which are supposedly missing from this account but cannot demonstrate what information they would provide or what inconsistency there is between those supposed sources and the one used, other than some very minor issue about temporary attachments which you seem fixated on. Most wikipedia articles would rely heavily on a unit history as this one does, and nothing you have provided so far indicts to me why this is an issue. The reliability of this source has been discussed elsewhere and current consensus is that it is a reliable source. Raising the issue again here is not helpful - raise it in the appropriate forum if you still have an issue. As the GA reviewer I'll be perfectly up front - unless a community consensus emerges against the use of this source I currently place ZERO weight on your concerns about it. This has been throughly discussed so I will not be participating in this thread any further unless another editor wishes to discuss this issue with me. Anotherclown (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Andrew Gray you talk about this brigade history as if it were a war diary. But it isn't. Naturally Wavell's very influential history of almost the whole campaign has been reprinted infinitely more than this brigade history, although the brigade served for the whole campaign. But this brigade history is not even mentioned as a source in publications describing the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. The problem is that this short out of date publication has been used as virtually the only source for three attachments its claimed the brigade made to other units. There is no other research to identify why the attachments occurred. I have supplied the link for one. Others will be available in the articles already published on Wikipedia describing the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. All this material has been ignored. Instead a brigade history is relied to add misleading information to the infobox. --Rskp (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Wrong again. Having given due consideration to your concerns I looked up the Australian Mounted Division war diary and guess what it concurs with the brigade source they were attached to the division when stated. So that has been added as an additional reference. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well done!! You misunderstand me entirely. I am delighted that you have found confirmation. Now add the citation and describe how long the brigade was attached to the AMD and what was happening at the time and your article will begin to have some depth and scope. And you will be able to include this info in the infobox. You know the so called history of the brigade was probably written as a report to the Princely States to let them know what their brigade had done. But because its anonymous, not written by the brigade commander, Allenby or someone on his staff, it should be taken as a first step. Its also useful to bear in mind that all authors, even anonymous ones have an audience in mind and that what they choose to write is not going to be everything there is to say about a particular subject. Particularly when its only 43 pages long and it purports to describe the brigade's activities from 1914 to 1918. You can bet a lot has been left out. I wish you luck in your research. --Rskp (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Error

There were no Turkish forces fighting in the First World War, they were German or Ottoman. At that time BEFORE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TURKEY, this was a pejorative word like Tommy. British units are not referred to as Tommy units. --Rskp (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for there being no Turkish forces as all the sources refer to Turkish. Even a discussion in the British House of Commons and even one of the reference books uses the term see - The National Army Museum Book of the Turkish Front 1914–1918: The Campaigns at Gallipoli, in Mesopotamia and in Palestine. Also see the Ottoman Empire article Quote - The Ottoman Empire, also historically referred to as the Turkish Empire or Turkey, was a state founded by Turkish tribes under Osman Bey in north-western Anatolia in 1299. end quote its also citted. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
It was the Ottoman Empire - look it up on Wikipedia. Your usage is pejorative in the context. --Rskp (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
See above reply. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I can see how the term "Turk" might be considered perjorative, but "Turkish" seems ok to me. Probably could be used interchangibly here, a bit like "World War I" or "First World War" to me. IMO as long as either (that is Ottoman or Turkish) is used consistently I can't see an issue with it. Indeed a number of reliable sources do seem to use "Turkey" and "Turkish" in relation to this era, including for one The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History. Regardless, once again we seem to covering old ground... Anotherclown (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Its POV. --Rskp (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Only yours its used by respected bodies. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Rskp - a very quick look through my library finds numerous reliable and very well respected works using the term "Turkish", in addition to The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History which I listed above I note John Keegan uses this terminolgy in The First World War, so does Richard Holmes in The Oxford Companion to Military History, while Hew Strachan uses both in The First World War. Against such authorities claims of POV seem difficult to sustain. Anotherclown (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
But Turkey did not exist until after the war. During the war it was the Ottoman Army which fought these battles. Do you not agree? --Rskp (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The history of the modern nation of Turkey is irrelevant to the issue. The name "Turkey" has been used in English since the middle ages and given we seem to be using Wikipedia here as a reliable source, see Name of Turkey. Anotherclown (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
One of your favourite publications used numerous time namely Preston's The Desert Mounted Corps uses Turkish all the time. In the authors introduction for example on the first two pages alone;
  • three Turkish Armies
  • destruction of the Turkish Armies
  • capitulation of the Turkish Empire
  • Though the Turks
  • Turkish soldiers
  • Turkish troops
  • Turkish and German
  • Turkish Allies
  • for the Turks. [9] Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have never claimed the word has not been used. Its not unusual for English language publications to use a pejorative term to describe an enemy. It was Ottoman Empire territory which was fought for - its misleading to refer to use a term which became correct only after the war. Wikipedia does not have to copy the wrong use of a word, even though this is english Wikipedia. Wikipedia aims for neutral points of view. --Rskp (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Who says "Turkish" is perjorative? Have you got any refences for this? So far it has been established that the word was in common usuage since the 1300s and is used in numerous very reputatble and unimpeachable sources (e.g. Keegan, Holmes, and Strachan to mention only a few). Of course the Ottoman Empire existed then and the nation of Turkey did not emerge until after the war though, so to me it would seem that using either would be acceptable as long as its consistent. Like I said previously I could understand this concern about use of the word "Turk" but not "Turkish" and I'm not swayed so far by your lack of actual argument. All you have really said so far is "its perjorative", WP:PROVIT or move on. What a minor issue to be wasting everyone's time with. Anotherclown (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Rskp - I note you have since added a POV tag [10] to the article after my post so I'm still waiting for a response. Just adding a tag without explaining the issue is poor form and isn't helpful. Why is the word "Turkish" POV? As the GA reviewer I have placed the review on hold for the moment because of a number of issues that you have raised with the article. So if you have a legitimate concern about POV you need to make it clear so they can be addressed by Jim. Otherwise I'm going to complete the review. Anotherclown (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: opposed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade → Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade – This is the name the brigade fought under from 1914 to 1918. See Raid on the Suez Canal in 1916 Third Battle of Gaza in 1917. It was only in the last few months of the war on 24 July 1918 [11] that it became the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade when it was attached to the 5th Cavalry Division. --Relisted Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Rskp (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose no need for move as the target is a redirect, this also follows the convention used in similar articles where the name is that last used or recognised. I would also state that the present name is what the brigade fought most of its battles as. It also saves on the need to disambiguate as it would have to be Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade (First World War) Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose following the practice of using the last name used. Hamish59 (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ottoman/Turkish

There is a WP:CONSENSUS to use Turkish not Ottoman, the discussion can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Ottoman Turkish Empire wording dispute. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This consensus only mentions the Anzac Mounted Division, and does not apply to any other article. According to Administrators' noticeboard status quo ante bellum applies. --Rskp (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Per my cmts at: Talk:Charge_at_Huj#Ottoman_Turkish. Firstly, the ANI discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive256#Moving_forward.3F did not make any such decision, you and Jim merely agreed to discuss the issues on the talk page in question. Secondly, the consensus reached here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Arbitrary_break clearly post dates the ANI thread so the issues have now moved on since then. There was majority support at a project level in that discussion that the term “Turkish” was not derogatory or POV due to its use in the majority of reliable sources. As I see it there is no requirement to discuss issues of terminology on ever single page that they are used on where such consensus exists. Anotherclown (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No, Jim and I didn't agree on anything. The Administrator imposed the Status quo ante bellum and I pointed out it was already in place. Further, the consensus ONLY MENTIONS AND RELATES TO the Anzac Mounted Division article. There is NO MENTION OF ANY OTHER ARTICLES so you have no remit to apply that consensus to any other article. It is only English language sources which use the pejorative term. What would you think if British Empire was replaced by England? That is essentially what the very odd consensus has achieved. --Rskp (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Well I did agree at the ANI, as anyone reading the discussion can see. Even if as you say you did not agree, YOU have broken the agreed status que this article used Turkish not Ottoman. Also I suggest you revist the WPMILHIST discussion where it clearly state =. b) continue the use of "Turkish" over "Ottoman" where context is clearly in favour of this term. The status quo has been restored and edits against consensus have been reverted. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:15th_(Imperial_Service)_Cavalry_Brigade/Archive_1&oldid=1088791101"