Talk:Battle of Romani

Town of Romani?

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 are two locations in the vicinity with similar sounding names: Qesm Remanah, and Bi'r ar Rummanah. It is unclear which of the two is the two is the one mentioned in the article, although due to an historical family connection with the battle, I had always believed it to be the former. However, comparing some of the battlefield maps from the article with these locations in Google maps and in particular the location shown for Romani in relation to the waterway to the north (Lake Bardawil), I think that Bi'r ar Rummanah is the more likely candidate. There is a location in Egypt called Romani, but it is one of the southern suburbs of Cairo, north of Giza, so clearly is not the Romani of the battle site. Flotterz (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle description

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)

Names

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)

Agree. ANZAC is more correct. Anotherclown (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps ANZAC existed from the beginning of the war until after the Gallipoli campaign when it was broken up. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Light Horse Brigades formed a part of the ANZAC and when they later formed the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division the men and a number of historians referred to the division as the Anzac Mounted Division, in memory of the Gallipoli campaign, or as the A. & N. Z. Mounted Division by some historians. ANZAC is in this case not an acronym and its use is wrong. --Rskp (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

ANZAC is the correct name used by the Australian War Memorial, see here [1] and here [2]

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)

Added to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#ANZAC for more discussion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division was formed in 1916 not the ANZAC. The men called it Anzac, so did military historians like Hill, Wavell, Bostock et al. Fall calls it the A. and N. Z. Mounted Division. After the first mention of the full name of the division and the initials 'Anzac' not ANZAC which corps did not fight in the Defence of the Suez Canal, Defence of Egypt or the Sinai and Palestine Campaigns. --Rskp (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to get this clear you are saying the Australian War Memorial content copied above is wrong? Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

POV

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:

Infobox lists the event as being "Part of The Defence of the Suez Canal and the Defence of Egypt First World War". Clearly only the British called the campaign this as their is no way the Germans or the Turkish would have used such terminology. I have changed this to Sinai and Palestine campaign as this is the accepted name for the campaign on wikipedia, however this was reverted here [3] by User:RoslynSKP).

The Battle of Romani formed part of the Defence of the Suez Canal and the Defence of Egypt campaigns. This is what these campaigns have been known as, in the English language, for the last 90 years or so. This is the English language Wikipedia after all. I do not read German or Turkish, and as the English language sources I used to edit this article to GA standard, do not mention a German or Turkish equivalent, I am unable to give an alternative title to this campaign, which was not part of the Sinai and Palestine campaign; it preceded the Sinai and Palestine campaign. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. The Battle of Romani formed part of the British Defence of the Suez Canal and the Defence of Egypt campaigns. Did the Turks or the Germans call it this? I doubt it. Wikipedia uses Sinai and Palestine campaign, why cant you? Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Anotherclown you are being rude. You need to apologise. So because Wikipedia uses Sinai and Palestine campaign what? Aren't wiki editors allowed to improve Wikipedia? --Rskp (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Its not an improvement it is against community consensus and it is British and Australian POV. Anotherclown (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead uses terms such as enemy: "From 20 July until the battle began, the Australian 1st and 2nd Light Horse Brigades took turns pushing forward and clashing with the advancing enemy column." Clear British/Australian POV which could easily be avoided by removing the term, as I have previously done (reverted here [4] by User:RoslynSKP).

Given the context of the sentence 'enemy' seemed not to be a loaded term. Throughout the article the enemy force is more often than not identified as German and Ottoman. If it is a problem, why was it not picked up during the GA process? --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Also rubbish. How can one side be referred to as the "enemy" in a neutral article? Clearly the Turks and Germans didn't call themselves the enemy. This is British/Australian POV. It is easily fixed by removing the word entirely; however, some how that was controversial enough for you to repeatedly revert it. I agree the term can be used in the right context, but that is not how it is used here. So what if the issue wasn't raised in the GA review? Its been raised now - deal with it. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• So its also rubbish that 'enemy' was accepted for GA? Yes, I am perfectly willing to change this to Ottoman and German advance. No need to be so rude though. --Rskp (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • So you finally accepted this point. Why then did we need to go through the pain of you reverting this minor change repeatedly in the first place? Anotherclown (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As any change I make to this article seems to get reverted I invite User:RoslynSKP to rectify these issues. Anotherclown (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am not allowed to change it. --Rskp (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I use 'Anzac' because 'ANZAC' really only refers to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which was in existence before and during the Gallipoli campaign. The 1st and 2nd and the 3rd Light Horse Brigades and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade (from memory) served before and on Gallipoli in ANZAC and afterwards these light horse brigades formed the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division in April 1916. The light horsemen referred to the mounted division as the 'Anzac Mounted Division' although its official name is the 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division'. This division has been referred to as the 'Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division', as the 'A. and N. Z. Mounted Division', and as the 'Anzac Mounted Division' in the literature. I can't recall seeing the 'ANZAC Mounted Division' but note ANZAC is used in the Wikipedia article name which describes the division. Anzac Mounted Division links to this article and is not wrong or incorrect. --Rskp (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. The article has now been amended by another user to deal with these concerns, so this would appear to have been resolved unless it is reverted yet again. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it got reverted yet again. Rskp - I've invited you to discuss this and you have not, you simply reverted again. That hardly seems like collaborative behaviour. Anotherclown (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of minor stylistic changes made by Anotherclown. These include adding hyphens, cutting brackets and etc. There is nothing wrong with counterattack as one word and sand cart as two words is misleading. The term is sandcart. I cut all the red links because there were so many and they made the article look like it was having major problems. There is even a red link in the introduction to the 3rd Ottoman Infantry Division which is not notable. There is another red link in the prelude to the 3rd (Anatolian) Infantry Division. There is a functioning link to the Ottoman 4th Army which I have recently rediscovered and would add, given the opportunity. The red links to the 6th, 7th, 11th LHR and to all the infantry brigades, are only necessary if the editor is planning to write all these articles in the near future as they are even less notable than the 3rd Ottoman Inf Div. Having recently come across a 'clean up red links' template I would add it to this article if I could. Cutting references to 'infantry' units is against the interests of the article which has been written to GA standard with the general reader in mind. Can this article please revert so that the general reader will have a chance of reading this material?--Rskp (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"There are a number of minor stylistic changes made by Anotherclown. These include adding hyphens, cutting brackets and etc. There is nothing wrong with counterattack as one word and sand cart as two words is misleading. The term is sandcart." Excuse me Roslyn? I didn't make any of these edits - get your facts straight. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See above section infantry is historically wrong they did not use the term. Red links are encouraged to assist in article creation. The 3rd Ottoman Infantry Division and the 3rd (Anatolian) Infantry Division would seem to be the same thing. Ther are way to many notes in brackets in the text. They should be changed to improve the flow of the text, most of them only repeat infomation provided earlier. If using an acronym it should be in capitals ANZAC, if not use the full term Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. The campain is the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I or North African theatre (World War I) or the Sinia and Palestine campaign not Part of The Defence of the Suez Canal and the Defence of Egypt First World War which has obvious POV. Last as you stated its only at GA standard not the finished article and can be improved . Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is 'they' what are your references. The trouble is that you are not improving this article and refuse to acknowledge the sources used in this article. Please stop your destructive edits. --Rskp (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a web link to the Long Long Trail a proven reliable source for Wikipedia see the divisions and brigades correct titles [5] Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making small changes to the style of this article as you have not written it and in doing so you are moving away from the sources I used to do this work. Thanks for the reference. It looks to be a very good web site which requests users to cite it. Could you please go though and add this citation to each and every unit name you have edited using this source? You will then be making a substantial positive impact on all these articles. --Rskp (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The small changes adding correct unit names etc do not effect the sources. WP:OWN again it does not matter that I or anyone else have not written this article, anyone can edit Wikipedia. There is no need to cite the unit names, unless they are in dispute, and would be WP:OVERCITE. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

When these unit names have not been mentioned in any of the sources used to edit this article to GA standard, its necessary to identify where these names came from. --Rskp (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

These small changes to style and words do not reflect the sources used to edit this article. The unit names you have added do not appear in any of those sources so I think it would be good practice to site your sources when you edit a page. Or do you want to hide this source? --Rskp (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Roslyn. Regardless of the style used in "your sources" we need to comply with Wikipedia's style rules, the WP:MOS and WP:MILMOS. Equally a lot of "your sources" are out of date and do not reflect modern usage or academic conventions. This is exactly why other editors are required to assist with these articles and these points have been raised with you on a number of occasions, usually with little success. I recall an A class review a while ago that I participated in that discussed many of these same points. I continue to be concerned with your lack of co-operation with other editors. If you don't want other people editing your work then it needs to be submitted to another forum. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Anotherclown my editor name is Rskp. I can get your editor name correct, why can't you? Please use my correct editor name in future. What a laugh, you can't be serious 'out of date sources' that is the funniest thing I have seen. And please do tell us all what are your up to date sources? Who are you to lecture me? --Rskp (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, clearly you are the expert and we lesser editors know nothing and should not be allowed to edit your article. Really this is one of the worst cases of WP:OWN I've come across. Who am I... who are you? At least you're starting to lighten up a bit though, I mean pretending to get all offended about your name... hilarity prevails! Anotherclown (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• BTW I've now added the POV tag because the article's infobox has been changed back to "Part of The Defence of the Suez Canal and Defence of Egypt campaigns First World War". As I said above only the British called it this, wikipedia uses the more neutral Sinai and Palestine campaign. If other editors disagree and a consensus is formed then I am happy to remove it, however until then, or until my concern are resolved, it stays. Anotherclown (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • At this point in time this has been resolved by Jim using Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, which seems like a reasonable compromise to me. As such I will remove the POV template, at least until this gets reverted too. Anotherclown (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks

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)

Makes sense to me, but I'm not the one that seems to need to be convinced. Redlinks are accepted by community consensus, yet any attempt to add them here gets reverted. Anotherclown (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know there is a functioning link to the 4th Army - see above. Yes, notability and verification are two criteria for making red links. Another is the likelihood of articles being written about for these links in the near future. So, are the editors who are so keen on red links, likely to get busy and write some articles, or what? If not cut the red links. In any case there are too many red links on this article and they detract from its GA status. I note these red links have been added after the GA process. Editors are encouraged to improve the article further, not diminish it. There is even a red link in the introduction - that is absolutely wrong.--Rskp (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

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)

I don't see the point of a discussion anymore - indeed there never was one anyway. This isn't a content dispute - the bulk of the edits have been about minor issues of style (i.e redlinks, hypthens, the presentation of unit names, etc). Hell even a bot was reverted twice for inserting date maintenance tags. What is the value in discussing every single full stop? This just seems like a way of one editor preventing others from working on these articles. Equally when I have raised valid concerns regarding POV they get ignored or reverted. Anotherclown (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am very happy to have editors work on pages I have been involved with if they are doing so on the basis of their own research to improve the article. This is tremendously valuable to all. But these edits have been by people who clearly don't know the area well, and so they are making edits which are nit picking impositions of their own styles and making mistakes along the way.

• They are not improving the article by adding names of units, which have not been mentioned in the sources used to edit the article, if they are not prepared to add their sources.

• Cutting 'infantry' from the infantry units involved in this, and other 'all arms' engagements, is very wrong as it gives a slanted view of the battle to the general reader who won't be able to recognise infantry regiments or brigades or divisions from the mounted ones.

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)

So to summarise you'll decide which edits are valuable and only then you'll let other editors work on your article? WP:OWN as before? Anotherclown (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Light Horse Brigade War Diaries

Currently the bibliography lists the fol:

• "1st Light Horse Brigade War Diary". First World War Diaries AWM4, 10-1-25. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. August 1916.
• "2nd Light Horse Brigade War Diary". First World War Diaries AWM4, 10-2-19. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. August 1916.
• "3rd Light Horse Brigade War Diary". First World War Diaries AWM4, 10-3-15. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. April 1916.
• "5th Light Horse Regiment War Diary". First World War Diaries AWM4, 10-10-20. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. August 1916.

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)

 Done I've now done this myself. Anotherclown (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Out of date and missing sources

As above I have expressed concern about the use of out of date sources, I therefore summarise my concerns as such:

• The bulk of the sources used include:
  • Battles Nomenclature Committee (1921)
  • Cutlack, F.M. (1941)
  • Downes, R. M.; A. G. Butler (1938)
  • Falls, Cyril; G. MacMunn (1930)
  • Gullett, Henry (1941)
  • Hill, A. J. (1978)
  • Keogh, E. G.; Joan Graham (1955)
  • Moore, A. Briscoe (1920)
  • Powles, C. Guy; A. Wilkie (1922)
  • Preston, R. M. P. (1921)
  • Bostock, Harry P. (1982)
  • Out of 151 citations, these make up approx 127 citations, or 84%.

• This is balanced by some more recent sources, including:
  • Bou, Jean (2010)
  • Bruce, Anthony (2002)
  • Carver, Michael, Field Marshal Lord (2003)
  • Erickson, Edward J. (2001)
  • Kinloch, Terry (2007)
  • Pugsley, Christopher (2004)
  • Woodward, David R. (2006)
• Yet these more contemporary sources make up just 16% of sources and often appear to have been added as "padding".

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)

Still waiting for a response here too. Seems like something that really should be considered if the article is to remain a GA. Anotherclown (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation errors

There appear to be a number of errors in the citation used:

• Short citations refer to "Bou 2009", but the long citations use 2010.
• "Bowman–Manifold 1923, p. 21" is listed as a short citation but has no long citation.
• "Wavell 1968, pp. 43–5" is listed as a short citation but has no long citation.

Unless I missed something these need to be added to the Bibliography/corrected. Anotherclown (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. All fixed.--Rskp (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

ANZAC Mounted Division

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)

If interested the Australian War Memorial does use ANZAC [7] Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems logical to me. Anotherclown (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But its not accurate the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps did not operate in the Sinai and Palestine campaigns and this corps was not formed into a mounted division, although some light horse brigades served in both. --Rskp (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is accurate as its the name for the division, and has nothing to do with the separate corps. Or are you now saying the Australian War Memorial have their facts wrong. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, 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 1982 p.62] None of these published sources use ANZAC. --Rskp (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Structure and focus - what is this article really about?

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

2.1 German and Ottoman force

2.2 British forces

2.3 Development of defensive positions

2.4 Light Horse patrols before the battle

2.5 Plans

3 Battle on 4 August

3.1 Reinforcements

3.2 Mount Royston counter attack

4 Battle on 5 August

4.1 British capture Wellington Ridge

4.2 British advance on Ottoman rearguard at Katia

5 Chauvel's force advance on Ottoman rearguards

5.1 Advance towards Oghratina – 6 August

5.2 Oghratina entered on 7 August

5.3 Debabis occupied on 8 August

6 Action of Bir el Abd – 9 to 12 August

6.1 Attack on 9 August

6.2 Strong patrols – 10 August

6.3 Planned attack – 12 August

6.4 Casualties

7 Aftermath

7.1 Some criticisms

7.2 Battle honours

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)

Still waiting for some sort of response here, Roskp. Anotherclown (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

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)

The text did not say divisions there is no dispute they served in the theatre - 160th and 161st Machine Gun Companies of the 53rd and 54th Infantry Brigades. -I have changed it to the correct brigades 160th and 161st. Machine-gun companies were named after the brigade they served in 161st Machine Gun Company was in the 161st (Essex) Brigade Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

An error had obviously crept in here its the 53rd and 54th Divisions's 160th and 161st machine gun companies. --Rskp (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Defence of the Suez Canal and Defence of Egypt campaigns First World War

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)

Read what you have written the British name for the campaign so it's British POV. The Middle Eastern theatre of World War I is neutral no Pov and it's what we call the theatre of war. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There were two sides fighting this battle the German, Austrian and Ottomans on one side and the British Empire on the other. This is the english language Wikipedia, how can it be POV to give the official name of the campaign which was assigned by the Battles Nomenclature Committee 90 years ago and presented to the British Parliament and approved by the Army Council. This is not the German Wikipedia, or the Austrian Wikipedia or the Ottoman Wikipedia afterall. How can you think its POV its official parlance by one of the major combatants. --Rskp (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Its the English Wikipedia, but that does not meant its English POV see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view did the Central Powers call it the Part of The Defence of the Suez Canal and Defence of Egypt campaigns. The Imperial War Museum uses THE CAMPAIGN IN EGYPT AND PALESTINE 1914 - 1918 [9] Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Germans called it Offensive zur Eroberung des Suezkanals - Offensive to the conquest of the Suez canal. The Turkish call it the İkinci Kanal Harekâtı - Second Canal Operation.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've just added these names. --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 11 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 Battle of Romani occurred before the Sinai and Palestine campaigns began. So claiming it as part of that campaign is inaccurate. --Rskp (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You wrote it was the start of that campaign, its also it the campaign template box ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Rskp. Happy to take your word on that as I don't have a detailed knowledge of the campaign and I'm rapidly running out of energy going around in circles. Regardless, as Jim has pointed out if this is indeed an error it was yours in the first place and you will need to reword the article and the campaignbox box to rectify it. Given this the infobox should be changed to read "Part of Middle Eastern theatre of World War I" which is what Jim had quite a few revisions ago. Anotherclown (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually from looking at this closer this appears to be a fairly complicated issue. I would voice a word of caution before you start changing campaignboxs etc, as it appears that this would effect a number of other articles. Currently it seems that wikipedia treats all the battles of this period as part of the Sinai and Palestine campaign, and where you mention the The Defence of the Suez Canal and Defence of Egypt campaigns this is covered as First Suez Offensive which itself appears to be included as part of the Sinai and Palestine campaign. Indeed the Sinai and Palestine campaignbox currently lists two other battles has having occurred before Romani - First Suez Offensive and Battle of Katia, so are you now of the opinion that they were not part of this campaign? Pls clarify exactly what you are proposing. If wholesale changes are to be considered they will need to be discussed at a central forum such as the main MILHIST talkpage with a consensus developed before changes are made. Anotherclown (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about the Sinai and Palestine campaign template but the "part of" section of the Battle of Romani infobox. As you say, Anotherclown, you "don't have a detailed knowledge of the campaigns" and yet you, Anotherclown, are prepared to carry on edit wars against an editor who has done the spade work, carrying on arguments while all the time, not bothering to do some good solid research yourself. Your single web site source is a good one for unit names, but should be checked against Falls, Wavell, Powles and Preston before making global changes. --Rskp (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rskp can you please elaborate on your comment above where you state: "The Battle of Romani occurred before the Sinai and Palestine campaigns began. So claiming it as part of that campaign is inaccurate"? This doesn't seem to match what is said in the Sinai and Palestine campaign article (please see the Battle of Romani section in that article, where it is covered in detail and below the section "Sinai campaign begins") nor as Anotherclown says, does it match with the campaignbox. His point does in fact seem valid to me, but I would like to hear your opinion on this. What is your take? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Roskp, as usual I'm left none the wiser by your comments. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this: "Your single web site source is a good one for unit names..."? I do not recall adding any web cites to this article, so I have no idea what you are referring to. Anyway I have already given my opinion on your over reliance on sources of the vintage of "Falls, Wavell, Powles and Preston" etc, but you have conveniently chosen to ignore that and instead level accusations of edit warring and ignorance on my part. I accept I'm no expert on the campaign itself, but I doubt you are either. Regardless, one doesn't need to be an expert to recognise that this article is still in need of signficant improvement. I have made a number of points about this article above which you seem to have ultimately, if begrudgingly, accepted, so I think my record here stands for all to see and judge. Any chance you might actually engage in a meaningful discussion? Jim, AR and myself have all raised the issue of the campaign name and the inconsistency between this article, the infobox, the campaign box and other articles. What is your response? Anotherclown (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Aren't experts drips under pressure? The sources I have relied on to bring this article up to GA standard provided the information for this article's development. There is nothing personal in this. Either you accept the authority of the sources or you do not. If you do not, then I suggest you take your editing skills to another forum, where opinion without citation is valued. --Rskp (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

discussion moved from Rskp talk page

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)

I also note that you have reverted Jim Sweeney 4 times in a similar manner at Battle of Katia on 30 November with little to no supporting rationale (difs here: [20], [21], [22] and [23]). These edits coupled with the those to Romani listed above appear to form a disruptive pattern. Your contributions to MILHIST to date have been greatly appreciated by many other editors, including myself, and have helped expand a neglected area of the Encyclopaedia. As such I genuinely hope you can continue to contribute constructively, its your choice how you chose to proceed though. Anotherclown (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Same goes for Battle of Rafa can you stop reverting edits, its now amounting to vandalism. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am simply reinstating information that the general reader will find useful. --Rskp (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No your are not - check your edits. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Roskp. I note you have once again mass reverted at Battle of Romani after you have repeatedly been asked to stop and to respect community consensus (difs here: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]). Many of the changes you have repeatedly made are contrary to a number of discussions, including those regarding the name "Battle/Affair of Katia" (here [29]) and the addition of redlinks (here[30])), both on the talk page for this and other articles and on the MILHIST talkpage. It certainly seems to me like no one is allowed to work on these articles other than you. Lastly your accusation (here: [31]) on my talk page seems like some sort of retailiation to me, rather than an attempt at any meaningful discussion. Anotherclown (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

For your information I have now reported this, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RoslynSKP reported by Anotherclown (talk) (Result: ). Anotherclown (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no compulsion to always use the name of an article e.g. Tulkarm every time when Tulkarem is also a perfectly satisfactory link. There is also no requirement to add so many red links to articles that they distract the reader. There is also no reason why articles should not be written with the general reader in mind who will no doubt appreciate being reminded that its an infantry or a mounted unit being referred to. --Rskp (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

How is any of that a response to the concerns I have raised above? Quite simply stop mass reverting and allow other editors to contribute. The edits you dispute aren't even about content, but largely about minor changes to style. In many cases the issues have already been discussed and the opinion of a number of other editors is that these edits are appropriate. Equally in other cases these edits are supported by long standing community consensus. Just because you feel different doesn't entitle you to edit war. I note that even after I informed you that I have reported the incident you have once again reverted another 7 times (difs here [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], and [38]). Such behaviour generally has consequences for all involved, so I suggest that if you wish to continue to be allowed to edit Wikipedia that you stop immediately. Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As you say these are minor changes and as they were acceptable at the time this article was awarded a GA I see no reason for you to repeatedly re edit. The changes I make are all one edit at a time, with appropriate descriptions of why they are made and in a considered fashion. Do not threaten me Anotherclown or I will report you. --Rskp (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How comical. You accuse me of "threatening" you when I warn you to comply with Wikipedia policy and then you "threaten" me in the same manner. Come on that is just funny. Anotherclown (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you insist on adding inaccurate names into this series or articles. Remember WP:OWN and stop mass reverting of any attempt to improve them above what was acceptable fo a GA Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to. But this battle was an all arms engagement and the mounted and the infantry units need to be differentiated for the benefit of readers. I have not 'mass reverted' anything, but have carefully and painstakingly re edited those sections of the article which have become obscure after editors have cut useful information. --Rskp (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not an all arms engagement its infantry both foot and mounted. The simple fact is the names you are using are wrong. And reverting every attempt to improve the text, either at one go or over several edits is still nass reverting. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to the sources, it was an all arms engagement; both infantry and mounted units were involved. The names of units have been based on the sources used to write the article. You are also wrong to change Anzac Mounted Division to Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division or ANZAC Mounted Division as, in the case of the latter its inaccurate and in the case of the former, its unwieldy. --Rskp (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Germancolonialuniforms.co.uk.

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

• Accuracy - Every attempt is made to present accurate information, however I do make mistakes on occasion. Please let me know if you spot any. I am always happy to discuss points of interest and correct errors. I look on this website as a continual work in progress with pages always ready for revision in the light of new facts.

• Also if you are thinking of using information on this website as source material for your own researches, I'd recommend you contact me first to check my sources for accuracy.

Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This web site lists the sources used and explains,

"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)

In that case the sources used by the web site, if reliable, should be used for this article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You might check some of the sources in the German version of the Asia Korps article (which I created as a translation from the German article).HLGallon (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Text added to article by RoslynSKP moved here so it can be seen - Credibility verified|date=December 2011|This web site lists the sources used and explains, "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 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.

As above the web site by the authors own admission is not reliable and he has followed the general consensus of opinion, Axis History Forum is a blog and not reliable, the other look more promising. They should r could be used for reference the section but would need to be read to see what they say. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comments regarding the veracity of this web site are a gross misrepresentation of the high quality of scholarship which had gone into the development of this credible web site. Why do you find a problem with it now, so long after this article gained GA status? Certainly the editor who awarded GA status had no problem with this source.--Rskp (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that does not answer the question, the author states its not reliable. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated this quotation; the source was acceptable in October, at the time the article gained good article status, no other editor has seen a problem with this source since.--Rskp (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

However its still an unreliable source.Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a list of units, after all, not an interpretative or analytical essay. --Rskp (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Still an unreliable site by the owners own admission.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This reliable site is misunderstood by Jim Sweeney and therefore misrepresented. --Rskp (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just how is it reliable when the owner claims otherwise. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Improve this page tag

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)

You have said it yourself, because its only GA standard, it can be improved. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

But it is not in urgent need of improvement as the tag implies - its a good article. --Rskp (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The tag is not at all related to the quality of the article. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But the tag asks for the reader to improve the article. That implies that there is something wrong with it. There is nothing to say its a test, so any reader coming across this unusual tag, will wonder why its there and come to the conclusion that the article has a problem. If as you say the tag does not relate to the quality of the article, what does it relate to? --Rskp (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the other side, Ottomans?

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)

As an english speaking researcher I have been limited to sources available in that language. I hope you will conduct your own research and when you find the information you seek, add it to this article. --Rskp (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111216202655/http://www.1914-1918.net/britdivs.htm to http://www.1914-1918.net/britdivs.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321182441/https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1469 to http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1469

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)