Talk:Harry Chauvel

Copyvio
This article appears to be largely copied verbatim from Ross Mallett's site. Most of it seems to come from these edits back in April 2007:   . 59.167.144.79 (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This was resolved when the article was re-written in 2009. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry Chauvel

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...

Harry was a senior officer of the Australian Imperial Force who fought at Gallipoli and in the Middle Eastern theatre during the First World War. He was the first Australian to attain the rank of lieutenant general and later general, and the first to lead a corps. As commander of the Desert Mounted Corps, he was responsible for one of the most decisive victories and fastest pursuits in military history. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Dabs, external links and alt text all look good. Back for a proper review in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

All for now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Oh, and btw, I fixed a couple of verb conjugations and an incomplete sentence. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * The second and third paragraphs of the lead contain too much information IMO.
 * This sentence is confusing: Near Oakwood, Chauvel's troops were confronted by a crowd of around two hundred mounted sheep shearers who became agitated when the inspector in charge of the police detachment arrested four of the shearers who were wanted by the police..
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Chauvel was given the mission of escorting 10,000 head of cattle to Belfast, Mpumalanga to supply the troops in the eastern Transvaal but his force was diverted by local commanders to burning Boer homesteads sheltering Boer commandos and attacking Boer units.. awkward. Initially, Chauvel was to escort 10,000 head of cattle to Belfast, Mpumalanga, to supply the troops in the eastern Transvaal. The local commanders reassigned his force to burn homesteads sheltering Boer commandos and skirmishing with Boer units.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Chauvel returned to find himself an officer in the newly formed Australian Army. Awkward Upon his return, Chauvel became an officer in the newly-formed...
 * No that's not right. Re-worded to "When Chauvel returned to Australia he found that while he was away he had become an officer in the newly formed Australian Army." Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * what is a substantive lt. colonel?
 * As opposed to a temporary, local or brevet one. Put in a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * he developed protocols, he developed training guidelines, whatever. He didn't develop views to do something.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mentioned in Dispatches probably needs an explanation for general readers. It might not be capitalized also.
 * It has a link. (Used lower case now.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Battle of Magdhaba. If he ordered a withdrawal, and the order was refused, and the battle won anyway, how is this a credit to him?
 * It was his plan of battle. added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Romani
Regarding the Battle of Romani section:
 * 1) I am wondering if it would be possible to reinstate 'northern part of the Canal including Romani, under Lieutenant General H. A. Lawrence.' The reason being that at this point in the article, its not apparent that the Battle of Romani is being discussed. Also a reference to Romani at this point makes it clear that it was part of Lawrence's responsibilities.
 * 2) *✅ Moved the link to Romani to the beginning of the paragraph.
 * 3) It seems the link to the Battle of Romani article has been lost. But it should not be at the start of the next paragraph because you have already started to discuss deployments at Romani in the previous paragraph at "His division was committed to." It is at this point mention should be made that it is Romani in "No. 3 Section" etc. Otherwise readers may be confused as to what battle it was that Lawrence was too far away to control. Chauvel's division was located at Romani from April 1916 but never amounted to more than 2 brigades until the day of the battle. The 52nd Infantry Division arrived with the railway. I hope you can see your way to amend this section.
 * 4) The reference to Chauvel and Lawrence sharing command of Lawrence's sector of Canal Defences is odd; Major General Chauvel was responsible to Lieutenant General Lawrence.
 * 5) *✅. Removed this.
 * 6) And saying the 'British infantry commanders would not take orders from Chauvel' infers that he tried but there was no need. The infantry were in the trenches they had built; there was no need for them to advance on the first day. On the second day of battle when they would have been useful in capturing the Ottoman Army the conditions were too tough - it was the middle of summer in the Sinai Desert. On the first day, 1st and 2nd Light Horse Brigades commanded by Major General Chauvel, needed to be reinforced by the mounted troops of 5th Mounted Yeomanry and New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigades which were at that time under the command of Lieutenant General Lawrence. And these two brigades received their orders and took their place in the battle line exactly as and when needed.
 * 7) *✅. There's a cultural difference here. In the Australian Army Chauvel could do that; but not in the British Army. So I have removed the statement. It would have helped Chauvel greatly if he could have moved the infantry to support him. It is hard to say that conditions were too tough; the Anzacs and the Turks were able to handle them.
 * 8) ** Yes, I agree but in defence of the British infantry, the Anzacs had their horses and the Turks had been hardened by their march across the Sinai. It seems neither 42nd nor 52nd Infantry Divisions had much if any experience of forced desert marches and I'm inclined to believe that a lack organisation regarding water really caused most of the problems. But the problems of the infantry are really outside or just on the periphery of the article.
 * 9) It would be really nice if this article could recognise the disposition was not faulty; it resulted in a great victory. Thanks to clever forward planning for this battle; the infantry built the trenches in precisely the right place; the two Light Horse brigades kept harassing the enemy day after day from 20 July - leading them on to precisely the right place so the infantry could attack the Ottoman Army's right; and the two brigades of reinforcements completed the line and forced the Ottoman Army to cease its advance. This demonstrates that it was not just Chauvel who chose the ground but both commanders of 52nd Infantry Division and Anzac Mounted Division cooperated in the planning and decision making process before the battle; without their cooperation the battle would have been a disaster, but it was a victory and should reflect well on all those who took part. Tho luck certainly had a part to play it was not Chauvel's alone; Kress von Kressenstein did not 'select the same position' he was forced into it.
 * 10) *✅. I have removed the bit about the dispositions being faulty. I do not wish to get too deeply into the battle here. Instead, I will overhaul the main article.
 * 11) ** I have had a go at the main article, but agree it needs more work.
 * 12) Gullett's description of Brigadier General Antill's reaction to shelling at Bir el Abd when light horse brigades were greatly outnumbered and outgunned is a very serious charge to make against any soldier and may be slanderous. It certainly reflects an extreme view which says more about Gullett than it does about understanding the action.
 * 13) *✅. "Bull" Antill was relieved after the battle. His unpopular place in history is assured without Bir el Abd. So I have removed this bit. I checked some British accounts, and they are remarkably charitable.
 * 14) ** The British War Diaries I've seen regarding other operations were very candid.

Can you please take another look at the changes to this article. :) --Rskp (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Hope this is okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for revisiting this. I'm very grateful. --Rskp (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the MID sounded like it may have been for Romani given its date and the reference to 'defence of the Canal' identifies it as either for the Attack on the Suez Canal of February 1915 or the 23/4 April 1916 Affair of Katia when Anzac MD came to the rescue of the 5th Mounted Yeomanry Brigade. Romani is the only other operation which was also part of the Defence of the Suez Canal campaign. Perhaps if you were to describe why he was Mentioned, it would be helpful.


 * In any case in the next sentence, what follows are the deployments immediately prior to the battle of Romani from mid July until 4 August 1916: 'His division was committed to No. 3 Section of the Suez Canal Defences, the northern part of the Canal, under Major General H. A. Lawrence. Arrangements were far from ideal. The mounted troops were parcelled out so that only two brigades of the Anzac Mounted Division remained under Chauvel's command. The 3rd Light Horse Brigade had been placed under No. 2 Section...'. :) --Rskp (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)--Rskp (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Turk to Ottoman
There are a number of references to Turks, Turkish etc. While this probably reflects what they were called in the Allied trenches it is pejorative; they were in fact Ottoman army soldiers. Can these be changed? --Rskp (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I spoke to one some years back and he called himself a Turk. It's not pejorative. I take it that you mean that the soldiers in some units were Arabs? I can have a look. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Turkey came into being after the First World War but during the war they were the Ottoman. No hadn't thought of Arabs but Ottoman is a more inclusive term. --Rskp (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done!
Congratulations on a front page article! Amandajm (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

...his light horse captured the town...
Can somebody please clarify how his light horse captured the town, and what his brigade was doing at the time instead?

Also, can anybody point out the actual vandalism in my edit, or indeed what looks wrong with the edit summary of "persumably it was the brigade, not the actual light horses - as implied - that captured the town"

If it was the typo of "persumably", not "presumably", then I apologise for destroying your featured article.

Actually, I am of course assuming that it was his brigade that captured the town, and not his light horse. If it was his light horse that did all the work, then fair enough - but a source to clarify that point might be a good idea, otherwise people may assume that it's an error resulting from the use of poor english structure. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it was not. The town was captured by the light horse of the 4th Light Horse Brigade. When military historians say "Grant's 4th Light Horse Brigade" they mean that William Grant commanded the brigade. Chauvel did not command the brigade, he commanded the Desert Mounted Corps, of which the 4th Light Horse Brigade was a part. When we say "light horse" we are using a specific military term for a military branch that combined the characteristics of both cavalry and mounted infantry, having the role and organisation of the former but fighting dismounted like the latter. The term is used grammatically the same way as "cavalry" or "artillery". A featured article is carefully reviewed and the words are often painstaking chosen.
 * Neither myself nor the other editors reverting vandalism intended to imply that you were a vandal. Your talk page would have been tagged if that was the case. Rather, your edit, being wrong, was swept up in periodic mass reversions of vandalism. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Your edit summaries specifically state "Repair vandal damage", "Sick of vandals. Harry Chauvel did not command the 4th LH Brigade", and Johnbod's states "rvt, take it to talk. Prima facie looks wrong". Those are way beyond implications of vandalism, and solidly into the territory of outright accusations.
 * I accept your superior knowledge of military terms in this case, but I do not accept your reasoning that you were not assuming good faith, and that you were not accusing me of vandalism. Regardless of whether an article is FA or not, care should be taken in reversion by editors - care which you did not show on multiple occasions.  That's poor show.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Like people changing TFA without good cause. They know they are not supposed to do it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed - they are intentionally making bad decisions and edits, which is the very definition of vandalism. As you are also doing.  Still - is that an obscure apology?  My changes were made in good faith, as was this one, and this one, yet you tagged them all as vandalism - when they clearly are not.  Also, you don't seem to be informing anybody of vandalism on their talk pages - the only one you have recently is this one which you tagged after your above comment about talk pages.  I put it to you that as your attitude only seems to extend to this particular page, you are suffering from ownership of a pet featured article, and consider that anything other than your own opinion is vandalism.  I have nothing against you reverting changes, but to blindly assume them to be bad faith and tag them as vandalism - especially from such an experienced editor - is frankly vandalism in itself, and your ettiquette leaves much to be desired.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Most were tagged by other editors. Three were blocked, including a named editor. I regret that you feel aggrieved at having your edits summarily reverted by myself and other editors. Given the high visibility of the front page, anything less than a correct edit needs to be swiftly reversed. The Anzac Day page was indeed my project, and, given the nature of the day, the page was especially sensitive. You may also feel aggrieved that none of the FAC editors recognised you. I can only say that no offence was intended. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not that my edits were reverted, (or even whether I was recognised - the editor is not important, it is the edit that matters,) but the manner in which it was done.  You specifically stated that three good faith edits were vandalism, and your only excuse is that it was a featured article.  That means even more care, not less, should be taken over reversions as the FA will have a lot more visibility to the world.  For example, I should imagine that this tirade does not show Wiki in the best light with regard to cooperation between editors, however as I am defending incorrectly tagged posts, I think this will show other editors that they can make good faith edits, and that they will be defended over them when badly judged.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Serious Question.
If the term "light horse" in the above contested statement is a military term, or used as a decription of a (partial) military task force, should it be capitalised? All other military unit descriptions are, including the 1st Light Horse Brigade, which is the one presumably referenced in the actual statement - but I'm loathe to make the change without clarification first. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a proper noun in this usage ie not referring to a specific unit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

MOS and Chauvel's name
Why does MOS not apply to Chauvel's name? He should, in the first instance, be referred to as "Sir Henry George Chauvel known as Harry Chauvel." --Rskp (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The King created him Sir Harry Chauvel. I've read through the manual of style, and looked at various news articles like . I've set it to a form that I think answers your objection while still being correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I was not questioning his title, just his christian names. Now it does look like his name complies with MOS. Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Odd claim - insult by knighthood
This bit (not supported by the references) seems a bit odd - very few people would have been insulted by a knighthood. This particular knighthood was a bit of an insult for Chauvel as it is normally bestowed on those who had performed "extraordinary or important non-military service in a foreign country." Hack (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the description of the Order of St Michael and St George on Wikipedia, "The Order of St Michael and St George is awarded to men and women who render extraordinary or important non-military service in a foreign country. It can also be conferred for important or loyal service in relation to foreign and Commonwealth affairs." Neither rationale appear to have anything to do with Henry Chauvel's service as an army officer in wartime. There do not appear to have been any army officers on the list of recipients, provided on the Wikipedia article, either. --Rskp (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just for non-military service. From the British Monarchy website (italics are mine)

The Order of St Michael and St George is awarded to men and women of high office, or who render extraordinary or important non-military service in a foreign country.
 * That's hardly an insult. Another notable military officer to have received a KCMG around the same time was John Monash Hack (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be if you had just commanded troops which had won a battle. --Rskp (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Monash does not appear in the Wikipedia article's list of recipients, nor do any other military personnel. Why would that be? --Rskp (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing because nobody bothered adding them. Hack (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. While the KCB was the higher award, the KCMG was normally used as an additional award for military officers. Usually you would get the KCMG first and later the KCB, as indeed Chauvel did. (Similarly, he was awarded the CMG for the Boer War) The restriction of the Order of St Michael and St George to its original use for foreign service occurred after 1918. Australian Army officers who received awards under the order in the WWI period include John Monash, Brudenell White, Talbot Hobbs, Granville Ryrie and Jim McCay.  Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Hawkeye7. Can you edit the Order of St Michael and St George article to correct the misleading information in the intro and provide your sources? --Rskp (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The intro is misleading but not incorrect; the conditions under which the award is presented have varied over the years. Just as the pound is now a form of decimal currency; things were a bit different in 1918. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The list in the Order of St Michael and St George article is of the current knights of the order. Former knights can be found under Category:Knights Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George; there are some 879 there, but of course it is not complete. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Move to Henry G. Chauvel opposed
I strongly oppose this move and want to see it moved back asap.

I dispute that WP:Official names supports this move. On my reading, it does NOT support it at all. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * However, Henry G. Chauvel is the man's official name. Harry is only a nickname and it is redirected, so there is no problem finding the article. WP:Official names is pretty clear "where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, this name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved." --Rskp (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Jack, and do not understand why a Featured Article was arbitrarily moved without discussion or at least consultation with the main editor, User:Hawkeye7. My reading of WP:Official names also does not support such a move, particularly since Chauvel was knighted as "Sir Harry Chauvel" as Hawkeye has explained many times so that is his official name and title. Furthermore, per WP:COMMONNAME, "Harry Chauvel" is the most common name of the individual, not "Henry George Chauvel" and definitely not "Henry G. Chauvel". The only biography of the subject, furthermore, presents the name "General Sir Harry Chauvel", meaning in historiography it is the most commonly accepted. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Common name is beside the point, while WP:Official names is very clear, the person's official name is the correct title of a Wikipedia article. --Rskp (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Official names is very clear: "New editors often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, this name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy... In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be." In other words, if an alternate title exists one must defer to WP:COMMONNAME for guidence, as the offical title is not at all necessarily the correct choice. "Harry Chauvel" IS the common name for the subject of this article, and the justification for moving it is not at all per the terms of WP:Official names or WP:COMMONNAME. Also, as already mentioned, Chauvel was knighted as "Sir Harry Chauvel" meaning that such a name was his offical title and the move of this page is against its very own argument. The page should not have been moved at all, particularly to a format (ie "Henry G. Chauvel") that I have never seen rendered in historical accounts. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A nickname is not the correct choice for the name of an article as its not the official name. The redirect takes care of Harry and is noted in the infobox. --Rskp (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OFFICIALNAMES is an essay, not a policy. WP:COMMONNAME is policy and it says that the most commonly used name for a subject should be used. The general was commonly referred to as "Sir Harry" or "Harry Chauvel" in contemporary reliable sources. Hack (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * However the Wikipedia policy Article titles gives the following guidance, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject" and provides the example John F. Kennedy (not: Jack Kennedy). --Rskp (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources also refer to Harry Chauvel, and most certainly NOT to Henry G. Chauvel. Your quoting of WP:Official names (which is what you used to base this move on) was very misleading at best, and may even have been a whole lot more sinister than that, but I refrain from going there under WP:AGF.  Abraham BS has provided the full quote. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And the sources provided by both myself and, particularly, Hack show that "Harry Chauvel" is the most common title presented in reliable English language sources. So, per WP:COMMONNAME, Article titles and WP:Official names this article should be moved back to "Harry Chauvel". Again, I have never seen "Henry G. Chauvel" rendered in any source. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * John F. Kennedy's article is not called Jack Kennedy, although there would by any number of sources, which would refer to him that way. Henry George Chauvel would be the next best thing, and bring the article into line with the names of Wikipedia articles, to do with military people. --Rskp (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing is akin to renaming Bill Clinton "William Jefferson Clinton". The usuage of Henry Chauvel was secondary to Harry Chauvel, while use of Henry George Chauvel and Henry G. Chauvel is close to zero. If titling of other military biographies doesn't follow policy, that is a matter for elsewhere. Hack (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, nothing to do with Bill Clinton. He is also a contemporary and not an army general. However, Henry George Chauvel would bring the article into line with other Wikipedia articles written about army generals. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A move back to "Harry Chauvel" is vaild per Wikipedia policy (namely WP:COMMONNAME, Article titles and WP:Official names) as mentioned above, per the common convention rendered in reliable English language sources, and, as it would appear, per WP:CONSENSUS. I edit extensively on Australian military biographies and moving this article to either "Henry G. Chauvel" or "Henry George Chauvel" would go against convention, not be in line with it. See Brudenell White and Harry Murray as examples. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple of other military examples would be Talbot Hobbs and Angus Houston. Hack (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Rskp, you made the move on the basis of WP:Official names. That argument has been completely demolished, mainly because the essay says exactly the opposite of what you claim it says, thanks to your selective and dishonest quoting of it. But now you're adducing other arguments. Clearly, you're determined to have your way, no matter what the consensus view is, and you'll stop at nothing to achieve that. This is not good faith or transparent editing, except it's very easy to see what game you're playing. Stop the argumentation and accept you are not going to win this one. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Brundenell White and Major Harry Murray are hardly comparable to Chauvel. See Philip Chetwode, and Edward Chaytor and Edmund Allenby for Chauvel's contemporaries which are all better comparisons. Note how their names are treated. Its a weak consensus and in any case its the strength of the arguments which is more important when considering an issue like this. Article names points to precision being one of the characteristics of a good title which does not apply to the nicknaming of an army general. You are mixing up the man's name with his nickname, and these are not mentioned in WP:COMMONNAME, Article titles and WP:Official names The nickname is fine for a redirect but should not be the name of the Wikipedia article.--Rskp (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I spt returning the article to WP:COMMONNAME of Harry Chauvel per JackofOz and Abraham, B.S. Article was moved without consensus and against policy. Incidentally the same issue has been played out today at Gallipoli Campaign. Anotherclown (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, sorry Anotherclown, you are wrong. There has been no attempt to change the name of the Gallipoli Campaign article, as far as I know. --Rskp (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto. The silliest thing is all this is that the article is under "Henry G. Chauvel", which makes even less sense than "Henry George Chauvel", which is what it was before the common names policy was (commonsensically) applied. Roslyn, I'm afraid I suspect that you tried to move Harry to Henry George and found you couldn't because Henry George already existed, the same as if someone tried to move this back to Harry. If so, it's another indicator of what Jack has stated about transparency.  Just face the fact that you needed consensus for this, you didn't even try to obtain it, and now we have to go to more trouble than a simple revert to get it back to what it was. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As we appear to be on first name terms; Ian, sorry, but no, you have fabricated a complete fantasy. Your imagination has led you astray. I thought and still think Henry G. Chauvel is the most appropriate name for the article, and indeed compared it to John F. Kennedy which is not Jack Kennedy. However, I was persuaded by the argument of another editor, above in this same discussion, that Henry George Chauvel would be preferable, to a Wikipedia article about an army general being titled with his nickname. Indeed, quite correctly, its a redirect. Experience of consensus, has proved them to be fugitive. They appear to be important only in certain circumstances, while in others they have no standing whatsoever. Indeed the veracity of the arguments should have some better standing in Wikipedia discussions. See WP:POLL where discussion, debate and collaboration are encouraged while vote counting or majority rule are not a substitute for discussion. --Rskp (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm disappointed to hear that you didn't want to move it to Henry George, and are using John F. Kennedy for comparison, as Kennedy was indeed commonly known by that moniker as well as Jack Kennedy and JFK, whereas I'm struggling to recall ever hearing Harry Chauvel referred to as Henry G. Chauvel. As for suggesting everyone else's opposition to your unilateral move is all just a numbers game,  arguments for Harry have been put forward but you appear not to want to hear them. "Official names ... should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand again. Or perhaps haven't read all the posts. Nevertheless, I was convinced by another editor that Henry George Chauvel was indeed preferable to a nickname. I did listen to another editor's arguments and took them on board. But, well, I'm not that surprised about your hearing. Kennedy was born in the 20th century in fact 25 years before Chauvel died and was around in the 60's. But its a stretch back to Chauvel who was born in the 19th century and died nineteen years before Kennedy. Although they both died while gainfully employed. --Rskp (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've read all the posts, including yours, with interest. Your argument about standards being different depending on when someone was around is spurious. Gaius Julius Caesar was here long before any of them, but we still use Julius Caesar for his article. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose As started above all RS use Harry and is common name. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Harry was his official name, per his knighthood. Please move it back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given name-initial-family name is an Americanism. It is not used in Australia, and this is a clear violation if WP:ENGVAR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Henry George Chauvel would be better than a nickname. In fact, the use of a nickname as article title, is unique among the Wikipedia articles covering Chauvel's contemporaries. --Rskp (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean like Billy Hughes? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was in fact thinking more along the lines of Philip Chetwode, and Edward Chaytor and Edmund Allenby. --Rskp (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Allenbys nickname was The Bull obvious why that was not used, not sure if the other two even had a nickname. Harry by the way is not a nickname but a diminutive form of the name Henry. But as usual your trying to deflect the discussion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:10, 30 October 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: Moved as requested. I note that the move itself has already been done. bd2412 T 18:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Henry G. Chauvel → Harry Chauvel – per WP:COMMONNAME (a section of WP:TITLE), Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

Per the essay OFFICIALNAME, official names should only be used if they are actually the common name (refer WP:COMMONNAME)

The subject of the article was overwhelmingly referred to Harry Chauvel in contemporary reliable sources. Searches on the Trove archive (shows most major Australian newspapers for the period of his life and career) result in ten times as many results for "Harry Chauvel" (5761) than "Henry Chauvel" (644) with other results being miniscule in comparison - "Henry George Chauvel" (70), "Henry G. Chauvel" (39)

Nothing in the article titling policy disallows the use of a nickname or alternative name as long as it is a common name. Per reference 95 in the article, the subject requested to be referred to as Sir Harry when receiving his accolade. Hack (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per common name and all RS. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Trove search. --Rskp (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Suport. Clear example of WP:UCN. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:26, 31 October 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.

Place of birth?
The infobox says: 16 April 1865, Tabulam, New South Wales, Australia. As Australia didn't exist as a country in 1865, would it not be more accurate (and thus, perhaps, "better") if it said: 16 April 1865, Tabulam, New South Wales? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't the British refer the continent as Australia in the late 18th century? If so, Australia wouldn't be inaccurate if a little misleading. Hack (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * a) Thanks for the response. b) in answer: I don't know. c) The settlements were individual colonies, which were entities in themselves - c.f. one doesn't refer to France, Europe; Canada, North America; or Egypt, Africa; so why would one refer to the Colony of NSW, Australia? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really answering the question but there was a suggestion during the 1880s that NSW be renamed Australia. This suggestion was not supported by the other colonies who presumably saw themselves as Australian (if not as a nation-state but as a nation). Hack (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Chauvel. 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/20140131123912/http://www.aif.adfa.edu.au:8888/Generals/chauvel.html to http://www.aif.adfa.edu.au:8888/Generals/chauvel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)