Talk:Desert Mounted Corps

Changing the names of units

An editor has decided to cut reference to the correct names of units in this article saying at [1] "ANZAC matches sources there is no consensus to use any other form and mounted is not used at all after first use for ease of reading" However MILHIST discussion group agreed twice, that ANZAC was confusing as the corps had been disbanded in 1916 and the mounted division needed to be distinguished. The editor has cut reference to "mounted" in the name of the three divisions and other brigades, "for ease of reading." This results in Anzac Division, Australian Division, and Yeomanry Divisions, which don't correctly identify the divisions, adding to confusion when Yeomanry infantry divisions are also referred to. --Rskp (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of this MILHIST consensus.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence of consensus copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Archive 108 No. 53 Hawkeye7's post -

"Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division was, in practice, too cumbersome a name, so "Anzac Mounted Division" came into use. The all caps usage is muddle headed. This is the consensus of military historians and I see no reason not to follow. (Aside: I have never seen a class that knew what an "Army Corps" is.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)" Can you please reinstate the full names of the units of the DMC? --Rskp (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not evidence of WP consensus. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See ‪Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion‬ Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments not the number of votes. --Rskp (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In that case see Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division where I suspect you got the above comment from. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:POLL does point to the strength of the argument which was sufficient for the MILHIST discussion page twice to agree Anzac was preferable. --Rskp (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

POV

Due to the over reliance on one source, there is a completely unbalanced description of the service history of the corps. This subsection makes up the vast bulk of the article and except for five citations, two of which are from the London Gazette, the 100 other citations are for Preston's 1921 publication. --Rskp (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That one source Preston just happens to be the history of the Desert Mounted Corps and I would also say this is not the finished article.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps you should add an under construction tag? --Rskp (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

3RR at Desert Mounted Corps

[moved from RoslynSKP's talk page] Roslyn; Just another note that you're close to breaching WP:3RR at Desert Mounted Corps. Once again, any further reverts within the next 24-hours or so will be passed to WP:3RRNB so you are advised to keep to the article's talk page and to stop war editing as of immediate effect.

• (cur | prev) 00:40, 27 November 2013 RoslynSKP (Talk | contribs) . . (81,744 bytes) (+341) . . (reinstate POV tag as the article does not comply with the first sentence of WP:POV) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 00:44, 26 November 2013 RoslynSKP (Talk | contribs) . . (81,494 bytes) (+91) . . (Undid revision 583313537 by Jim Sweeney (talk)reinstate POV tag as reliance on one source not NPOV) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 00:29, 26 November 2013 RoslynSKP (Talk | contribs) . . (81,494 bytes) (+91) . . (Undid revision 583064022 by Jim Sweeney (talk)reinstate POV tag one source is not NPOV which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all views ...) (undo | thank)

Please do not cut/paste notices such as this on the article's talk page. They relate solely to your own behaviour and are not relevant to improving the content of the article which talk pages are designed for.

Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Marcus. But it directly relates to improving the quality of this article, because I have been trying to get some understanding that the first sentence of WP:POV really does directly relate to the unbalanced approach taken in this article. While the article languishes in its non neutral state the POV tag should remain. --Rskp (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If you think war editing and flippant tagging constitute "improving the quality of this article" then you're an idiot. Needless to say, your history of ill-mannered reversions has not gone unnoticed, but I will address your point directly. The first sentence at WP:POV reads "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The key here is "published by reliable sources". Despite being asked multiple times to present such reliable sources to support your own arguments, particularly "Turkish is a derogatory term", you have failed to do so. In fact, you have avoided the question completely and with the typical uninformed arrogance I've come to expect of you. Maintaining that "Turkish is a derogatory term" is in itself a "point of view" and therefore, if you want to meet the requirements of WP:POV — though clearly you don't understand that POV works two-ways, in that if you wish to challenge one POV then your own POV must also have reliable sourcing – the onus is on you to prove that "Turkish" is derogatory, offensive, has a historical case of being demeaning, racist, or whatever "derogatory" means to you. I can find proof that terms such as Pommy, Limey, Paki, Canuck, Frog, Kraut, Chink, and so on all have negative racial connotations, but have yet been able to find any proof that "Turkish" is considered offensive or was designed to be offensive in reference to Ottomans. Your claim, so far, is not only WP:POV but WP:FRINGE until you can find considerable reliable proof. Until you do, it is highly unlikely that your push to somehow censor the word "Turkish" will ever succeed. You claims appear mere revisionist claims to me, not worth giving the time of day. However, if you feel otherwise, I suggest you stop acting like a pretentious nitwit who talks out their backside, and present some proof. This isn't some religious debate where you can't prove there's a God or whatever, you're attempting to make a factual statement that "Turkish" is a bad word. I challenge that assumption as a fringe-POV, and now it's your job to prove me and everyone else wrong rather than bitch across wiki like a child whilst abusing "POV" tags, 3RR, ANI, consensus and talk page guidelines. Good luck! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that this a question of POV, it is one arguably more about sourcing so I have removed the template. That said while the article does use Preston heavily, as the history of the unit this does seem appropriate to me. Roslyn - if you believe this article has issues with POV pls outline those issues in full on the talk page. Merely reverting and not substantiating the issues you see is unconstructive and given you have made similar edits in a number of other articles this is starting to look like disruptive / harassing behavior. Anotherclown (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing flippant about this POV tag. Relying on one source, when there are a number available has produced an unbalanced article, which does not conform to the first sentence of WP:POV. --Rskp (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

By my count the article uses 13 different sources, not 1. Whilst it clearly uses Preston heavily as the history of the unit that is to be expected. Do you have anything else to add or are you just going to repeat yourself? You have said it is unbalanced without providing any examples of specific information that is missing or is incorrect. Unless you can do so you assertion is unsubstantiated. Anotherclown (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman not Turkish

Although many of the sources refer to the Turkish army etc., at the time it was the Ottoman army as Turkey did not come into existence until after the war. So "Turkish defences" should be Ottoman defences. --Rskp (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As you have said sources use Turkish. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the English sources do, but its derogatory as the Ottoman Empire was the enemy. This is Wikipedia in 2013 not 1921 England, and the proper name of the empire should be used. --Rskp (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So lets get this clear your saying we should not use the names as used by the sources but another name entirely. Can I suggest you check your edit history for the last month and read some of your reasons for reverting.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• We are talking here about the formal name of a country, and the colloquial, derogatory term used to describe an enemy. We are not talking here about the names of the units who did the fighting, changed without citing any sources in more than one article, which have been justified by "ease of reading" or not at all. --Rskp (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is now a WP:CONSENSUS to use Turkish the full discussion and rational can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Ottoman Turkish Empire wording dispute. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Copy Editing

On a couple of occasions I have tried to improve the style, tone, cohesion etc of this article, but these attempts have not been allowed to stand, so I have added the copyedit tag. --Rskp (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Confusing abbreviation of divisions' names

The Anzac Mounted Division, the Australian Mounted Division and the Yeomanry Mounted Division have been abbreviated in this article to the Anzac Division, the Australian Division and the Yeomanry Division. The 5th and 7th Mounted Brigades have been abbreviated to the 5th and 7th Brigades. The editor claims "mounted is not used at all after first use for ease of reading." The names should be reinstated. --Rskp (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

They can not be "reinstated" as I never used them. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, but I did and that work has been undone. --Rskp (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Subsection - formation

The sources quoted in this subsection describe the division four months after its formation, so this heading in inaccurate. --Rskp (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I know you struggle with military terms but formation, in this use, does not mean when it was formed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Service history not required

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide an article about a unit or formation should consist of -

The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey:

The formal name of the unit, its abbreviation, and its nickname(s). What is the unit's country or allegiance? What service (Air Force, Army, or Navy) was the unit part of? When was it formed? If the unit no longer exists, when was it disbanded or deactivated? In what notable battles, operations, or wars did the unit participate?

The article can be structured along these lines:

The unit's history. Why was it formed? Who formed it? Where and how has the unit served in peacetime and war? Who has commanded it? If the unit still exists, where is it now? What higher-level formation is the unit assigned to, if any? What is its current role? The unit's traditions. What mascots does it have? What anniversaries does it celebrate? What gallantry awards (such as the Medal of Honor, Param Vir Chakra, or Victoria Cross) have been awarded to members of the unit? What unit awards (such as battle honours or presidential citations) has the unit received?

There is no requirement for a Service history. --Rskp (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That as the name suggests is a content guide, its not inclusive, it also says "the article can be structured" but does not say thats all that can be covered. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What is certainly outside the guidelines is a WP:POV retelling of the whole campaign. --Rskp (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Formation section

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide an article about a unit or formation requires a description of its formation. This was added here [2] but was cut here [3] --Rskp (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Its covered in the text above no need to duplicate.12:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The formation subsection was restored here [4] saying "Formation restored as correct term for military oob" but when I added the detailed information about the formation of DMC saying "provide information regarding formation of Desert Column which was renamed Desert Mounted Corps," to explain that the formation of the corps was carried out before Allenby arrived, while still called Desert Column. The following information was cut from the DMC article, saying "this is an oob section not on how the cops was formed most of info deleted is already covered above and rest wa soff topic - desert column is linked".

"Between General Murray's recall in early June, and the arrival of Allenby late in June 1917, Chetwode as commander of Eastern Force gave Chauvel as commander of Desert Column, oversight for the establishment of the Yeomanry Mounted Division, made possible by the arrival of the 7th and 8th Mounted Brigades from Salonika.[ref Hill 1978 p. 116 ref ref name="Falls357">Falls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 357 ref ref name="Keogh125–6">Keogh 1955 pp. 125–6] [ref group="Note" It may have been Murray, who decided on the establishment of the third mounted division, but the brigades did not arrive until after Murray had been recalled. The reorganisation of Desert Column was complete before Allenby arrived at the end of the month. [Falls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 357] ] The decision to transfer the 7th and 8th Mounted Brigades from Macedonia in May and June 1917, recognised the "value of mounted troops on this front."[ref name="Falls357"] However in May 1917 a lieutenant in the 5th Mounted Brigade opined:

quote|Cavalry warfare is about over I think ... They can't say we haven't done our share – we have taken every inch of ground this side of Kantara ... and I should think I have ridden on an average the whole distance at least three times – the infantry have simply followed us up. Lieutenant R.H. Wilson, Royal Gloucestershire Hussars Yeomanry (5th Mounted Brigade), 21 May 1917 [Paget 1994 p. 108]

On 21 June, the Imperial Mounted Division became the Australian Mounted Division still commanded by Hodgson. On 26 June the 6th Mounted Brigade was transferred from the Australian Mounted Division, and the 22nd Mounted Brigade from the Anzac Mounted Division, and along with the recently arrived 8th Mounted Brigade, formed the Yeomanry Mounted Division. Commanded by Major General G. de S. Barrow, who had also just arrived from France. The 7th Mounted Brigade's two regiments were attached to Desert Column troops. [Falls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 357, Vol. 2 pp. 661–2 Australian Mounted Division Train War Diary 21, 26 June 1917 AWM4-25-20-1 3rd Light Horse Brigade War Diary June 1917 AWM 4-25-20-1] [ref group="Note" The 7th Mounted Brigade consisting of two regiments with the Essex Battery RHA was commanded directly by Chetwode's Eastern Force headquarters. [Wavell 1968 p. 91] Army Troops became a regular attachment to Desert Column. [Bou 2009 p. 165] Army Troops also included the Imperial Camel Corps Brigade supported by Australian Camel Field Ambulance from 2 June 1917. [Bou 2009 p. 165, Downes 1938 pp. 629–30] ]

Desert Column was reorganised from two mounted divisions of four brigades, into three mounted divisions of three brigades:

Anzac Mounted Division commanded by Chaytor

1st and 2nd Light Horse, New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigades, XXVIII Brigade RHA (18-pdrs)

Australian (late Imperial) Mounted Division commanded by Major General H.W. Hodgson

3rd and 4th Light Horse, 5th Mounted Brigades, XIX Brigade RHA (18-pdrs)

Yeomanry Mounted Division commanded by Major General Barrow.

6th, 8th and 22nd Mounted Brigades, XX Brigade RHA (13-pdrs). The batteries in Desert Column consisted of four guns each.ref name="Wavell90–1">Wavell 1968 pp. 190–1 ref name="Falls357"] [group="Note"Murray had suggested to the Australian government in June 1917 the formation of a 5th Light Horse Brigade, but this was not possible, because the Australian volunteer recruitment policy, could not attract sufficient recruits, at that time. [Downes 1938 p. 628] Allenby states that Robertson "refused to sanction the formation of a 5th Australian Light Horse Brigade; on the score of lack of horses," although he stated horses were available in Australia, and he requested Robertson reconsider the issue. [Allenby to Robertson 19 July 1917 quoted in Hughes 2004 p. 40]

Allenby indicated to Robertson on 12 July, that he planned to reorganise the EEF into two infantry and one mounted corps, "all three directly under General Headquarters." [Allenby to Robertson 12 July 1917 in Hughes 2004 p. 35] The structure of the EEF, would resemble the organisation of the force Allenby had commanded in France, which had reflected contemporary British combat doctrine, in the middle of 1917. [Erickson 2007 pp. 112–3 Grainger 2006 pp. 239–40] Further, in order for him to directly command these corps in the field, Allenby created two EEF headquarters. His battle headquarters was established near Khan Yunis, while the remainder of his headquarters staff stayed in Cairo, "to deal with the political and administrative questions involved in the control of Egypt and the administration of martial law." [Allenby to Robertson 12 July 1917 in Hughes 2004 p. 35]

On 12 August a conventional corps headquarters, designated the XX Corps and commanded by Lieutenant General P. W. Chetwode (formerly commanding Eastern Force) replaced Eastern Force. The headquarters of the XXI Corps commanded by Lieutenant General E. S. Bulfin (arrived from Salonika as officer commanding the 60th (London) Division) was formed, while the headquarters of Desert Column was renamed Desert Mounted Corps commanded by Lieutenant General H. G. Chauvel (previously commanding Desert Column).[Cutlack 1941 pp. 63–4 Hill 1978 p. 118 Falls 1930 Vol. 2 p. 16]" --Rskp (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Links to battles

As the oob changes radically from October 1917 to September 1918, the main battles have been added to help readers differentiate between the two very different organisations of the corps, but these have been cut repeatedly. --Rskp (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Its covered in the text above no need to duplicate.12:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Chaytor's Force

Despite reinstating the following units of Desert Mounted Corps in this article, it has been repeatedly cut.

Chaytor's Force commanded by Major General Edward Chaytor, was briefly detached for operations in the Jordan Valley and Transjordan.

Anzac Mounted Division (Major General E.W.C. Chaytor)

1st Light Horse Brigade (Brigadier General C. F. Cox)

1st, 2nd and 3rd Light Horse Regiments

2nd Light Horse Brigade (Brigadier General G. de L. Ryrie)

5th, 6th and 7th Light Horse Regiments

New Zealand Mounted Rifle Brigade (Brigadier General W. Meldrum)

Auckland, Canterbury and Wellington Mounted Rifle Regiments

18th Brigade RHA (Inverness, Ayrshire and Somerset Batteries) and Divisional Ammunition Column [Massey 1920, p. 339]

A/263 Battery RFA

195th Heavy Battery RGA

29th and 32nd Indian Mountain Batteries

No. 6 (Medium) Trench Mortar Battery

3 anti–aircraft sections RA

Detachment No. 35 AT Company RE. [Falls 1930 Vol. 2 p. 673]

20th Imperial Service Infantry Brigade

Alwar I. S. Infantry, Gwalior I. S. Infantry, Patiala I. S. Infantry, 110th Mahratta L. I. Battalions

1st Battalion British West Indies Regiment

2nd Battalion British West Indies Regiment

38th Battalion Royal Fusiliers (Jewish Battalion)

39th Battalion Royal Fusiliers (Jewish Battalion) [Keogh 1955, p. 240 Powles 1922, p. 236 Wavell 1968, p. 219 Massey 1920, p. 339 Falls 1930 Vol. 2 p. 673]

This information was cut on 9 September here [5] the editor claiming that "linked article no need to detail" these Desert Mounted Corps units. But DMC is what the article is about so I undid that edit the next day, here [6] saying "reinstate info as all the units in the force were part of DMC the force only operating independently for a matter of weeks." This was undone on 12 September here [7] saying "No need to repeat." But the names of these units don't appear anywhere else in the article. --Rskp (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Umm Safa

I just started the article on Umm Safa. Checking "what links here", brought me to this article. However, I cannot find anything about Umm Safa on the page given, Preston, 1921, p. 110...or anywhere else in the book. What am I missing? Huldra (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)