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

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) 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 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. 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 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 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. 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. Firstly, the ANI discussion here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive256 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 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)