Talk:Horses in World War I/Archive 1

Further development
Perhaps some of the chapter headings in Johnson's Horses of the German Army in World War II suggest a useful framework for improving this article's coverage -- possibly helpful in terms of horses in any of the armies of the First World War? This was just a potentially plausible thought .... --Tenmei (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Suitability of different breeds?
 * Employment of horses?
 * Selection and training of personnel?
 * Supply in the field?
 * The veterinary service?
 * The remount system?

US v UK English?
Not a huge deal, but wondering why the decision was made to use UK English. "World War I" being US usage, while "First World War" is, I think UK. Not sure if there is any kind of military history consensus on this issue regarding WWI articles, but just thought I'd ask. One instance in the article of the US spelling needed for the US legislation, as the UK spelling goes to different legislation...I actully don't care either way, just was wondering.
 * Gah. I wrote everything I added in US English, so that's what I would prefer the article to be in. There was some existing stuff that I left in, however, and apparently I didn't look close enough at the spelling. Not really any sort of rule on this - it's an international article so it can be in whatever spelling the main editors want it to be in. Would you mind correcting any UK spellings that you find, and I'll take a run through and do the same? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll surf. There's a bunch, actually-- to the extent that I thought it was a UK English article. Will fix. Montanabw (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

London memorial to animals in war and the War Horse play
I added a link in the article to War Horse (play), but noticed that while this article says "West End", the article on the play says it started on the South Bank, and then moved to the West End (may have gone national now, dunno). The London memorial (to all war animals) is Animals in War Memorial, and includes a horse statue (see picture at bottom). Another article that may be of interest is Horse Memorial (you mention it but don't link to it). Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I was trying to say/ask above is whether the "Port Elizabeth" memorial you mention in the article is for WWI horses, and hence different to the Horse Memorial for Boer War horses? I've also realised that the London memorial I linked to may be outside the scope of this article, which is focused on WWI, but it may be relevant. The play is definitely WWI (sorry, I was getting my wars muddled up). Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Carcharoth, for the links and information. I'll get these integrated into the article, probably this evening. Dana boomer (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I've fixed the info on the article, which did indeed start somewhere else. Removed the Horse Memorial link, as my original source apparently had it wrong and you were right (again!) in saying that it was a Boer War memorial. Added a bit on the Animals in War Memorial, as despite the fact that it doesn't specifically cover equines in WWI, it does in a general way. Thanks again for the comments and links! Dana boomer (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Not horses, but I love that the London memorial includes glow-worms! See here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was also quite fascinated by the use of glow worms. Maybe we should start an article...Glow worms in World War I... For some reason, I don't think that's ever going to be blue linked :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Shine little glow worm, glimmer, glimmer..." (doing bunny hop...never understood why you danced the bunny hop to the glow worm, but ... ) Montanabw (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Real-life tale
Was doing my periodic trawl through news search engines for WWI stories, and I found this - some background to the War Horse novel. Lovely tale of a horse called Warrior, and his soldier. Carcharoth (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I've added some information, although not specifically mentioning Warrior. I'm trying not to mention specific horses too much (other than examples such as the one Australian horse who was re-imported), so that it doesn't become a list of "beloved WWI horses". Keep the links coming, they include great information for the article! Dana boomer (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More sources
These are getting close to being primary sources (some were published during the war and are primary sources), so take care, but I thought you would find the following useful:, , , ,. The last one is French, unfortunately. One other thought - you may want to mention equestrian statues that commemorate World War I soldiers. It is strictly speaking a standard type of statue, rather than anything specific to horses, but Ferdinand Foch has an equestrian statue at Victoria, London. See File:Ferdinand Foch statue (Victoria, London).jpg. That's not very good. A better one is File:Tarbes eq foch.jpg. Carcharoth (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these, Carcharoth. My fear (reflected in the GA review below) is that there is already a lot of information on English-speaking countries in this article, and to get into even more detail (as would be possible with the articles above) would make the article weigh even more heavily towards those countries. I will look through the articles, but from what I saw on a quick glance they all focus on Britain, which already has a lot of information in this article! Unfortunately, I don't speak/read French (and Google translate always give me horrible results), so I can't access the last article, although I would love to because I'm sure it gives some good information on continental Europe which would be beneficial to the article. I would also like to include a line on equestrian statues, but can't seem to find reliable sources to back up a sentence such as "Equestrian statues were made of several World War I participants, including Ferdinand Foch...". Any ideas for sourcing? Thanks again. Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing on statues, this article is about the horse themselves, only indirectly about the famous people who happened to ride them. However, I suspect these may have been among the last equestrian war hero statues made, so that alone is of interest... but just because someone was sculpted on a horse may not all by itself be that significant here? (This is not a critique, just some thoughts..?) Montanabw (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Found something else here. Search for "horse". I think the stuff about only one horse returning to Australia, and the memorial in Australia (that was originally in Egypt) are covered, though the article I link seems to be either referring to something different, or early plans for the memorial that were later changed. Carcharoth (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks for that. It was actually a completely different statue, just recently unveiled. Added in a bit... Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

General comments
Having been following the progress of the GA review, I decided to reread Christy Campbell's Band of Brigands: The First Men in Tanks ISBN 978-0007214594 (acutally I have the paperback, but I haven't maange dto track down the ISBN for that)over the weekend. As you might expect this concentrates on the birth of the tank, but to some extent also looks at wider tactical issues-from reading it it defintiely seems that this article overstates the development of mechanisation. The reference to mechanised divisions seems particularly ott. David Underdown (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Well, keeping in mind that "mechanization" is not just tanks, but also trucks, railroads, etc...We would be interested in some thoughts on how to improve or rephrase the material on mechanization to give it proper balance; the sources Dana consulted seem to have placed the emphasis as stated in the article, so perhaps thoughts on sources that get it "right" without delving into WP:SYNTH (i.e. OR) territory would be valued! I know that the early US tank units were a big thing with George S. Patton during WWI even though he was a horseman himself, but I can't say that I've studied the question of how the two balanced out. Obviously the horse was on its way out, but mechanization a cutting edge technology with a lot of limitations in the period. Montanabw (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also mentioned, and particularly relevant from the horse opint of view is that horse fodder was the largest single item brought to the front by the British throughout the war (I know this aspect is touched on). Figures are also given for the number of horses with which the BEF entered the war - and the requirement that was already expressed for how many more they needed then.

One thing that it occurs to me that is msising from the article is any real discussion of how the horses were equipped, what sort of weight were they expected to carry? Saddles, and mroe tangentially the weapons carreid by their riders. There were lance on lance charges in the opening battles of the Western Front (9th Lancers were involved in at least one). The first British shots of the war were fired by cavalry troopers. One thing that did distinguish British cavalry was that the cavalry carried exactly the same rifle as the infantry, rather than using a carbine. David Underdown (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article Horses in warfare has an extensive section on the carrying capacity of horses under saddle or in harness. Not sure if it makes any sense to repeat the general info here, and would require extensive research to have the nuances of what each nation did added in. There were a lot of differences; there are volumes of stuff on this, but hard to find and not a lot of books synthesizing the info so we avoid wiki OR problems. Also, this article is about the ways horses were used, not so much the detail of each type of use -- Would we also want to add the breeds of horses used (beyond what's here already) the types of wagons the draft horses pulled, the types of artillery they pulled, the harnesses used, the supplies they carried, and so on...? Montanabw (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tack is pretty daunting, given all the nations involved (everyone used something different, it would be like putting all the uniforms of every nation into the WWI overview!), the studies I have seen just on saddles in the US military boggle my brain, and every nation had variations in equipment; the USA was quite wedded to the McClellan saddle, for instance, a design little changed since the US Civil War, yet as Dana noted, Austria-Hungary took themselves out of the war with badly-designed equipment, even though the Hungarians in particular were normally considered renowned horsemen. It's a cool idea, but tough sledding to get just enough for a paragraph or two without going into the deep archives. Montanabw (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Guns: There's an argument to be made that this is an article about horses -- and horses don't shoot. It is interesting... specific articles on mounted infantry or cavalry or whatever seem to be the place for this. Here, we are mostly discussing the animals, and not sure in broad terms that the general classes of weapons used by cavalry changed much from the Boer Wars or even Crimea -- rifles or carbines, etc... basic light handheld weapons, though the style and technology changed, it was still the same basic weapon. I don't think they ever came up with a horse-mounted machine gun! (LOL) Montanabw (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It also strikes me that there's some slightly odd grouping - why have the US and Canada together? It would probably make more sense to have British Empire countries together (the UK still developed most military doctrine for the Empire) - the experience of the Indian Army also needs to be mentioned. David Underdown (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There IS an argument to be made for including India, if we can find anything. Sources?? But remember this article is about HORSES first, and their overall role. The groupings reflect more the locations where horses fought and how they were used in the broadest sense; the US and Canada get grouped together, for example, due to similar logistics and deployment -- they had to ship across an ocean, were primarily deployed in certain locations, and their equipment reflected their origins and training in their homeland more than where they were deployed or by whom (the Mounties would have had more of an immediate influence on Canadian cavalry than anything else...that much is clear even in the recruitment poster leading the article!). The vagaries of geography, tactics and the physical nature of horses dictated their use to a great degree no matter which nation used them. A trench is a trench is a trench, and trenches limited the use of horses on all sides, for example. Montanabw (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the above comments intended to be excessively argumentative, and a lot of good ideas in there for overall article expansion and improvement. As for GA criteria, what's more useful here is not what we COULD do, but rather what we MUST do. (and by "we" I really mean Dana, who has the hardcopy source material at her place -- which is well over a thousand miles from my place!) Sounds like figuring out the balance of horses versus mechanization needs a little more thought (though Dana's sources may also simply contradict Campbell, too, in which case we "just teach the argument," I guess), and maybe some follow up from the reviewers as to where, after these conversations, we NEED some expansion, as opposed to where expansion would be interesting. I guess if you could just give us a sense of where we are by the GA list, that will be the most helpful! Montanabw (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec with Montana)
 * Hi David, and thank you for your comments. I feel compelled to point out that the one thing I may have understated in this article is how much my sources (including specialized histories on cavalry) emphasized the downfall of cavalry with the increasing mechanization of war. By mechanization I don't just mean tanks, but also better guns/artillery, which were a major problem for horses, and this was seen as early as the American Civil War, but was particularly prevalent during World War I. As is pointed out several times in the article, horses were still used extensively for logistics (hauling, communications, etc), and were quite successful in theatres, such as the Palestinian one, where they faced an enemy which was on equal or lesser ground technology-wise. When cavalry was used for the purposes for which cavalry was designed, it still reigned. However, when faced with tanks, machine guns and trench warfare, it faltered and eventually fell.
 * I would love to see your book's figures on the exact numbers of horses with which the British entered the war. My concern with this article, however, is getting too specific. There is a ton of information out there about some of the combatants (Britain in particular - for some reason, the Brits were particularly fond of their cavalry!), and I want to avoid getting bogged down with specific numbers, recounts of every battle involving cavalry, tables of percentages, etc. I know there are already a lot of specifics in the article, and it is already heavily weighted towards the English-speaking world. If your book provides more information on the horse usage of the Central Powers, I would be even more excited to see that - it is the hardest information to find from what I have found.
 * I have added some information on escapades of the 9th Lancers at the very beginning of the war, especially the lance-on-lance charge, since this was (I believe) one of the last, if not the last, that happened on the Western Front. I haven't seen the statement that the first British shots were fired by cavalry men - could you provide me with your source on this, or feel free to add it in yourself, as it would provide a great perspective on how the view toward cavalry changed over the course of the war? The same with the info on the rifles, although again, I want to try to avoid getting too bogged down with details. As far as how horses were equipped, I haven't really found much on this. For the most part, countries just used standard cavalry saddles, although there is the mention of the poorly-designed Austrian saddles causing problems already in the article. The average horse can carry up to approximately 30% of its body weight, and while all horses can pull more than they can carry, the weight horses can pull varies widely, depending on the build of the horse, the type of vehicle, road conditions, and other factors. This is, however, a statistic of modern peace-time, and it may be that horses could/did carry more than this during WWI. I did find a statement (which is already in the article) that between six and twelve horses were needed to pull the artillery pieces, depending on the size of the gun. I haven't found any sources that gave more info on how cavalry troopers and their horses were equipped.
 * The layout is mainly because I was going with a geography theme - North America in one section, Oceania in another, continental Europe in a third, etc. If you think it would be better with all of the UK grouped together, then we could experiment with this, but I think that it would make for a very long section, since at this time the Aussies were still part of the UK. I found some stuff on the Indian cavalry exploits, but the source was deemed unreliable by the GA reviewer and had to be removed. I have been searching for another source, but so far no luck.
 * As a final note, I will be going to the library tomorrow, where I plan to conduct a thorough survey of every WWI book I can get my hands on, to see if there's any small fact I missed that could be beneficially added to the article. I look forward to your replies on this subject! Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I wonder if there's partially a problem of terminology here, what you're referring to as mechanisation, seems to be what I've more often seen called the industrialisation of war, mechanisation referring more specifically to the arrival of infantry regiments moved by motor transport, alongside more developed armoured formations. Perhaps the closest WWI came to this was actually in the early part of the war with elements of the Royal Naval Division attempting to intervene in the Siege of Antwerp (1914) with improvised armoured cars and Royal Marines moved around in requisitioned London motor buses (another interesting sidelight mentioned by Campbell is that the last ever fare-paying horse-drawn bus service ran in London the day after the British declaration of war - motor buses were on the up anywya, but London Omnibus Company also had contractual arrangements with the British Army for the supply of horses). Another possibly missing thing from this article is any mention of Bicycle infantry, you don't need so many people to guard dismounted bicycles as you do to hold horses, nor do you need to feed them! In both these cases, the available bicycles and motor transport was as ineffective against barbed wire and machine guns as conventional cavalry.


 * You're probably right that we need separate articles on actual cavalry doctrine (I see that even British Army during World War I doesn't mention the British use of cavalry!). Incidentally, British cavalry regiments certainly did have a machine gun section, http://www.1914-1918.net/whatcavreg.htm, though I don't suppose they were ever fired from horseback! Seeing that you've mentioned the 9th Lancers' CO in the article text has reminded me that I really must get round to finishing User:David Underdown/David Campbell (British Army officer) the present stub that has been written whilst I've been stalled relaly doesn't do this remarkable character justice! One source I had come across when writing that is Doctrine and Reform in the British Cavalry 1880-1918 (only apartial preview available on Google unfortunately, enough to give a pretty good flavour though) This does give some information on British Empire thinking, including British India. On which note, the last lance charge by British Empire forces actually seems to have been at High Wood during the Battle of Bazentin Ridge in 1916 by the 20th Deccan Horse and 7th Dragoon Guards, there's quite a nice image of the Deccans drawn up in parade order before hand File:Deccan Horse, Bazentin Ridge 1916.jpg. David Underdown (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I have always seen industrialization referring to a societal change, while mechanization refers to "providing human operators with machinery that assist them with the muscular requirements of work." to borrow WP's phrasing, which is what I'm trying to describe. Increasing mechanization moved humans from fighting with their fists (although we still often see that a lot...!), to using rocks, to forging and using swords, to inventing guns, then to improving the guns to be able to kill more people/animals more efficiently. The same with people starting with walking, then using horses, then using trucks. I know that's a serious simplification in both examples, but i think you will see what I'm trying to say.


 * In regards to mentioning things such as bicycle infantry, machine guns in cavalry, etc, is that this article needs to be kept focused on its topic, which is the horses. Not the artillery, not the people riding them, not anything else - the horses and the role they played is what needs to be described, with as little sidestepping from the main topic as possible. These "Horses in ... war" articles have a habit of getting very long and unwieldy, as we try to add tons of extra information into them to describe everything that we think is necessary. The equine editors have found in the past that in order to not wind up with a series of 75K plus horses in war articles, we need to put extreme emphasis (to the point of being annoying!) on focus. I will check on the book link to see if there's anything useful to add, and thanks for the picture - I think I had seen it, but after seeing it again I will probably try to find a place for it in the article, as it is a nice shot. And to clarify, which I should have done earlier, I meant the last lance-on-lance charge, not the last lance charge period. I'll see if I can find any references for it being the last lance charge, though. Dana boomer (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess there's an argument for either terminology, just trying to highlight, but those coming to this article from a milhist background are likely to understand something different from teh use of mechanisation tahn what you're tryign to describe (I suspect this is partly the issue the original GA reviewer had). On the last lance-on-lance charge, I realised later that was what you meant, I was being dim. For refs: http://books.google.co.uk/books?lr=&as_brr=0&q=lancers+%22david+campbell%22+last+charge turns up a few hits, the best probably being the The Army quarterly and defence journal article (I wish I could get my hands on a full copy of this), and that from A History of the British Cavalry 1816 to 1919: The Curragh incident and the ... by the Marquess of Anglesey, this is the history of the British cavalry as I understand it (see ), both are only available in snippet view though.

Some hard facts
To back up some of the points above:
 * 1) First British shot of the war, Edward Thomas (British Army soldier), 4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards, nr Casteau in the run up to the Battle of Mons. His troop leader, Captain Hornby killed the first German by the sword, Sergeant-Major Sharpe also accounting for one German with the sword. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/firstshot_01.shtml for an account of the action, also mentioned in Richard Holmes (military historian)'s book Tommy: the British soldier on the Western Front 1914-198 p 437 (paperback 2005 ISBN 0007137524 ).
 * I've added this. Thanks for the reference!


 * 1) Campbell, p.29 (ISBN 9780007214600 for the paperback I have) gives the figures of the BEF beginning with 25,000 horses and immediately needing 120,000 more. He contrasts this by mentioning the BEF had just 500 motor vehicles at the start of the war, mostly requisitioned. By 1918 the figures were just under 400,000 horses and 22,000 motor vehicles. Holmes concurs with the initial figures (pp. 161) and further states that the cavalry division which went to France had almost 10,000 horses, and each infantry division required almost 6,000 for guns, wagons and senior officers. Holmes further states that "At one point in 1917 the army had nearly a million animals on its strength, with 436,000 of them in France." and "By 1917 only about 27,000 of the British horses on the Western Front (falling to some 16,000 by early 1918) moutned the remaining cavalry" "In December 1918 the BEF fed a total of 394,443 animals. Of these just 25,414, riding and draught horses, were in the Cavalry Corps, and 48,822 served on the lines of communication" (p. 163)
 * While interesting information, this is really more detailed then I believe needs to be in the article. While it would probably be quite useful for, say, the article specifically about the British military efforts in World War I, because we can't produce comparable information for other countries, it would leave an already UK-centric article even more so. This is especially true as we already have quite a few British specifics in the article that aren't matched up with ones for other countries, for example in the Procurement section (which is where this information would be if it were included.)


 * 1) Can't find the comment about fodder in Campbell again now, but Holmes says (p. 163 again) "It is small wonder that fodder was, by a narrow margin, the heaviest single item shipped to Frane, heavier even than ammunition."
 * Added a bit about one of the countries shipping large amounts of fodder being Britain.


 * 1) Holmes p. 163 also has some interesting info on the Women's Forage Corps, numbering 6,000 women by 1918 preparing and transporting fodder, and the Women's Remount Depot helping to break in horses.
 * Quite interesting, but probably more British detail then we really want to get into in an overview article.


 * 1) There's more on the British remount system and acquisition of horse on pp. 161-63, and also "By June 1915, long before it began to conscript men, the army had taken 8 percent of the heavy horses in use on the land, and 25 percent of saddle horses had gone from farms."
 * Again, more Anglo-centric.


 * 1) One of the key witnesses to the early British charges was Ben Clouting, who lived until 1990 having joined the army under-age in 1912, he's quoted both in the BBC article above, and by Holmes (p. 449), since he, with other members of 4th DG also joined David Campbell's second charge leading the 9th Lancers at Elouges, Clouting recalled Ahead, the leading troops were brought up by agricultural barbed wire strung across the line of advance, so that horse were beginning to pulled up when I heard for the one and only time in the war a bugle sounding 'troops right wheel'."
 * Interesting, but probably not notable enough to include.


 * 1) My sources are rathe anglo-centric I'm afraid, but Holmes (pp. 436-7) does contrast the British cavalry in their khaki basically identical to that of the infantry, with the French cavalry who initially went into action with cuirasses and metal helmets flashing in the sun, and as a Second Lieutenant Kenneth Godsell commented "a rooted objection to dismounting. His animals were looking very thin and tired as a result of long and trying marches in this hot weather.", and the Germans, still with plastron tunics for uhlans, hussar jackets, and spiked metal helmets for cuirassiers. David Underdown (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, interesting. However, this article needs to focus on the horses (since the article is named Horses in WWI), rather than their riders. At over 38K already, and with more info on the main European players (and possibly some smaller belligerants if I can find it) needing to be added, getting into the details of cavalry dress seems a bit off topic.

David, thank you very much for the information and the sources. It is refreshing to see sources provided to back up thoughts/comments/opinions. Not just here, but on many articles, I find editors pushing for certain inclusions without providing proper sourcing, and it is quite nice to not have that issue here! I have added in a couple of the references you added, and I have given comments under each above with my reasoning on inclusion or not. Please let me know if you don't agree with any of the above, and we can hash it out! Dana boomer (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My own library, and the specialist library most easily accessible to me tend to concentrate on British sources, wish I could find more on the other nations, perhaps we need British use of horses in World War I! I thought it better just to present what I could find, and let others do the choosing. The French reluctance to dismount does seem to have had consequences for the horses though:

"But Sordet [General Sordet commanded the French cavalry at the start fo the war] had been run ragged. It has been suggested it was his own doing:

"The French cavalryman of 1914 sat on his horse beautifully, but was no horsemaster. It did not occur to him to get off his horse's back whenever he could, so there were thousands of animals with sore backs, the smell of some units, owing to this cause was painful. A sixth of General Sordet's command had already melted away. " [Sir Edmond Spear, British liaison officer attached to the French, the comment refers to August 26 as best I can make out]

...

But it should also be noted that the French themselves were critical of Sordet's handling of horses "he was blamed for not letting the horses drink in the hottest summer days." "|Cavalry from hoof to track'', pp. 137-8, Roman Johann Jarymowycz


 * As an illustration of the fact that the British cavalry were involved right through the war, I've just stumbled over the fact that the last British fatality from enemy action before the the armistice came into effect was trooper George Edwin Ellison, C Troop Royal Irish Lancers, shot by a sniper as the regiment moved into Mons a few minutes before 11am on 11/11/1918. (Ancestors, p. 45, December 2008, The National Archives/Wharncliffe Publishing Limited. See also ) Unfortunately the article doesn't directly confirm that it was a mounted action. David Underdown (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is great information, and I would love to add it to the article. It doesn't matter if it directly confirms he was a cavalryman - as long as the unit is commonly known to be a cavalry unit, we can make that inference without a specific reference. On the Ancestors ref, is that a book or a magazine? Could you give me some more info on it in any case - specific title and author if it's a magazine, author if it's a book? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He was certainly a cavalryman, and is referred to as such in the article, it's just not clear if the unit as a whole was mounted in this op. Ancestors is a magazine published by The National Archives (UK) with Wharncliffe Publishing Limited. There's no author given, there is a Wikipedia article on the editor though, is the fullest citation I can work out. The url I've given is where you can (for a fee) download a copy of the particular article from the website of The National Archives, there's also some info on the magazine's website, http://www.ancestorsmagazine.co.uk/?page=article&id=586. If you drop me an email, I can forward yo uthe pdf copy I've looked at. David Underdown (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the additional information, and thanks also for your continuing help on this article. I've added a bit to the article, in the UK section under Cavalry. Dana boomer (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just found this too, describes how horses were brought from Canada to the war zone. Though I don't know enough about the magazine to decide if it really qualifies as a reliable source. David Underdown (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol! I was reading through and went "huh, some of this wording looks really familiar". Then got down to their sources section and, lo and behold, "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_1". Also used is "firstworldwar.com", which is another non-reliable site. I'm going to go with not using this article as a reference, but thanks again for keeping the links coming. I'd rather look at several unreliable ones than miss a reliable one with valuable information! Dana boomer (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead
This is an interesting article but if no one else has mentioned it, you might consider reworking the first paragraph to conform to Wikipedia's advice on the subject. Good luck with GA. Rumiton (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, Rumiton, but would you mind expanding on it, as I'm really not sure how the lead doesn't not meet the guidelines set forth in WP:LEAD? The recommended length for an article over 30kb is 3-4 paragraphs, and this lead is a fat three. The first paragraph sets forth why this topic is important, and basically boils the entire article down to one paragraph, which is expanded upon slightly by the next two paragraphs. The lead as a whole summarizes the entire article, without including any new information. As I have said, I'm not sure how it does not conform to WP:LEAD. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. A lead should be both an introduction to the article and a summary of the main points. The length of this one is not the main issue to me, but rather the style. It does not read like a summary, or something that has been "boiled down" at all, and I think your own word "fat" is probably the most relevant. Boiling down means removing the fat. The style here is expansive rather than condensed, and the reader has to work pretty hard to get the subject overview they are expecting. It just looks like the editors need to do some more work at getting the words to work harder. You might need to depart a little more from the exact source prose, which seems somewhat wordy. This takes boldness but repays the effort. Rumiton (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And when she does, then the next editor is going to say the lead is not comprehensive enough and slap 16 fact tags on every sentence. Rumilton, I'll take an outside look at it on behalf of Dana and see if there is room for style tweaks, but the lead editor here (not me) has a substantial number of GA's and several FA's to her credit and I really think she knows how to write a lead. Frankly, and I don't want to derail Dana's effort here, this is all JMO and don't blame the lead editor for my rant, but I have never seen such a nitpicking GA review as this article has gotten. Where does it fall short of GA? Seriously. I don't see it. You can get this fussy for FA, but I think this article far exceeds the GA standard. I can't review it myself because I've done a little tiny bit of the work on it, too much to be un-COI, but seriously, I really think it's high time to pass it. I've stated before that people are making the perfect into the enemy of the good here... Montanabw (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rumiton, by saying a "fat" three paragraphs I meant that it was three decent sized paragraphs, not skimpy ones. For an article this length, three paragraphs is on the short side - there are some reviewers who would ask for it to be the full four that WP:LEAD allows. Montana did a bit more trimming, just words here and there, but there's not a lot more to trim. If anything, the lead needs to be expanded a bit more to give a better overview of the article, but I'm just going to leave it as it is until someone else picks up the GA review. If you would like to give some examples of what you believe to be wordy, I'd love to hear them, although I won't necessarily take your suggestions - sometimes cutting words means removing nuance, and that is something that we don't want to do. Montana, thanks for your defence of the article, but no-one else has actually picked up the review since NVO called it quits, so at the moment all of the comments above are just people chiming in like they would on any other page, not actual reviewer comments. I've been talking with a couple of MilHist people to try to get a review finished, but no luck so far. The comments in the above two sections we are free to take or leave as we may - they have nothing to do with the GA review until an editor actually expresses an interest in picking up the review, and that's probably slow to happen because of the length and technicality of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll zip my lip on this. But wow, these military history articles sure go through a gauntlet! Montanabw (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Montabw, yes, they certainly do. A lot of people care a LOT about them, so they get very thoroughly thrashed out. This is a good thing. It is part of our national, cultural and family story and we want to get it right. My grandfather worked with horses in France from 1916 to '18 and I remember him well.
 * Well my grandfather was a WWI vet and I remember him well too. That's not the point. The point is Neutral Point of View, verifiable by third-party sources and consistent with the guidelines for style and verification. And my view of this process is that the military history articles are astonishingly nitpicky over things that really are a no-win, because articles get attacked from opposite directions in ways wherein the possible solutions are mutually exclusive. Seriously, everyone wants their favorite battle, battalion, gun, uniform, or whatever to be mentioned and it's simply impossible in an overview. Montanabw (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dana, when you say "If you would like to give some examples of what you believe to be wordy, I'd love to hear them, although I won't necessarily take your suggestions" I need to remind you of the nature of this medium. If you want to write a blog or a magazine article, you can certainly ask for suggestions and take them or not as you decide, but Wikipedia is collaborative. Articles that don't attract a wide interest will be left alone, but if an article is deemed important enough, you will have to get a consensus for anything you want to do to it. Wikipedia articles doesn't belong to anyone. (Though, by the way, I do think this article comes up to GA standard at least right now.) I'll see if I can make some style suggestions. Rumiton (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rumilton, how 'bout sparing us the WP:OWN discussion (after all, we've been around here a while) when you just admitted that you didn't even read the whole article before attacking it? Wikipedia collaboration is by consensus. A lead editor does have the status and obligation to review all input. If consensus of all involved editors indicates your suggestions are worthy of adding, it will be added. If it's not, it's not going to stay. You should be an experienced enough editor to know that. But thank you for making your suggestions below. I'll defer to Dana on the next run-through. Montanabw (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I attacked the article, I'm sorry if you think that. I did say it seemed to qualify as a GA. I most certainly did think the lead needed sharpening up and I have made a suggestion for how to do it. Let's talk about that. (BTW I don't think anyone should "defer" to anyone. It's best for everyone to openly present their own ideas.) Also, what is a "lead editor"? Is it the person who wrote most of the lead? Or something else? I have never heard this term on Wikipedia before. Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead editor is basically the person who does most of the work or does the most oversight of an article. Here, for this GA push, no question that Dana is a lead editor. This in no way implies ownership, it simply gives credit where credit is properly due. There is an explanatory link somewhere in the WP project pages, I have been looking for it, can't find the article where it's at. I found over 100 references to the term, but not the article that defines one! (phooey). If I find the article, I'll add it here. Montanabw (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you sure this term relates to editing articles for Wikipedia? Rumiton (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Rumiton, Montanabw is right. This term is used frequently on WP to basically describe the editor who has done or overseen most of the work to take an article to its current status. It doesn't apply ownership, but instead pretty much shows where to place the blame if there are huge errors :) Like Montana, I can't find the policy page detailing this at the moment (if indeed there is one), but do a search for "lead editor" and you will see the extensive use of the term. And I promise to get to rewriting the lead soon - I know I've fallen down on my commitment in that aspect. Hopefully tonight... Dana boomer (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did the search but the only results came from outside Wikipedia. I know the term is common in journalism. Can you show me where it is relevant to Wikipedia editing? Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you type it into the search bar on Wikipedia? Because when I do that, I get something like 14,000 hits, of which most are being used in a Wikipedia context (there are a few journalism things regarding souces, but not many). Anyway, this is beside the point. It doesn't matter that I'm the lead editor - you are correct that anyone can suggest changes or just go ahead and make the changes themselves. However, when the changes are something that makes the article conform less to WP policy (i.e. a too-short lead), or that is changing something that doesn't need to be changed (i.e. citations in the lead), the people who did the most work on the article have the right to speak up. This is especially true when the editor suggesting the changes admits to not having read the whole article and therefore may be suggesting some changes that may not be valid. Like I said, I will try to get a new lead up tonight (right now I'm going to get potting soil for starting spring planting, yay!), and I will incorporate some of your suggestions below, and hopefully we can work from there. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that is strange, because when I type it into the search box I get exclusively refs to journalism or academe. I will refer the question to some admins and see what they say. (I strongly disagree that "this is beside the point.") Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Rumiton, I would ask that if you're going to go running to an admin, you at least present our position fairly. This post: "An article I have been looking at seems to be rather stalled in a pretty turgid state because the editors have nominated somebody to be the "lead editor" and this person has become the final authority on what changes get made. They insist that this is Wikipedia policy, but I have certainly never heard of it. It seems to contradict OWN at least." is really not beneficial, or a good summary of our position. I was not "nominated" to the position of lead editor, I was simply the one who did most of the work on the article, has access to most of the sources, and has the most interest in it - hence the term "lead editor" is used. I have said above that I'm not the "final authority on what changes get made". People are free to contribute to both the article and the talk page - those of us contributing on the talk page just ask that major changes (like chopping the lead as your propose) be discussed here first. Other editors are free to not honor this request, but that will quite possibly lead to a WP:BRD cycle, which could be avoided by simply discussing first, which I prefer. I thank you for discussing changes here first - I'm sorry that you find the article in a "turgid state", when it's really quite dynamic. Look at the changes made over the past three months, when it was taken from a pretty poor start article to a well-prepared GA candidate - this is not an article that has been sitting around with no-one caring for it. If you would like us to not use the term "lead editor" then we won't - what term would you prefer that we use for an editor that has done most of the work on the article? We have also not insisted that it is WP policy - we have admitted that we can't find the guideline/policy page that we thought was out there, which means it may have been changed. All that we insisted was that it was common usage. Try changing your search by, after doing a general search for "lead editor", clicking on the division for "help and project pages" near the top of the page, just under the larger search bar that comes up at the top of the results page. As a last comment, we are not trying to "OWN" the article. If someone else had come along before I dropped the re-write in and taken over responsibility for it, I would have been more than happy to hand the article into their (hopefully) capable hands. However, since I am the only one who seemed to care about it, I have put myself in the position of continuing to make sure the article doesn't degrade and indeed simply continues to improve. To this end, I am more than happy to take people up on suggestions that I think are reasonable. Just see the comments by Carcaroth, NVO and David Underdown - some of their suggestions were incorporated into the article, some weren't, and the discussion was fruitful to the point of ending up with an improved article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Having been asked by Rumiton about this, I gather you're trying for a GA push etc. so I do understand why you are talking about a "lead editor" in the sense of someone who takes responsibility for getting the article ready for a GA nomination, and I agree that usually makes sense. However, I can see what Rumiton means -- the prose in the lead, notably the second paragraph, is hard going. It doesn't so much draw me in as require me to concentrate really hard to follow the narrative. It's possible to try to cover too much detail in the lead. I found Rumiton to be a capable copy editor and writer elsewhere, so I wouldn't dismiss his input. -- JN 466  15:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jayen, and thanks for your comments. I have had a go at the second paragraph to see if there was anything I could trim, and I found a bit. Hopefully I made it better and not worse? Please believe me when I say that we're not trying to dismiss Rumiton's comments. It's simply that he wants to cut most of the first paragraph, which really explains (at least to me) why this subject is so important in the evolution of the use of horses both within the war and in warfare as a whole. Also, he has admitted that he asked for major cuts and referencing in the lead without actually having read the article, saying that some of the claims were extremely dubious without apparently even briefly checking to see that they were, in fact, cited with multiple references in the body of the article. I do want to make the lead more readable to the general public, but I'm trying to balance that with the need to summarize a 45+kb article in 3-4 paragraphs. I don't want to trim too much nuance and detail, but as I said, I do want it to be readable. I hope that the tweaks I have just made has advanced the article, so please let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, much better. -- JN 466  23:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jayen, as far as I am concerned, Rumiton is, at this point, simply being disruptive for its own sake, as far as I can tell. He has admitted that he hasn't even read the entire article, so he doesn't even understand what the article covers, he clearly elevates form over substance in the guidelines even though he claims to know them, and yet he has taken up half the talk page with tendentious comments about how the lead is wrong, even though it happens to precisely parallel the article itself per the wiki MOS guidelines for a lead. Can something always be improved? Of course, and you will note there have been many edits to the article, including the lead, since all this began. But bottom line is that I for one am sick of tendentious debate that is one person, Rumiton, bogging down the people who are doing the REAL work here with comments that are not helpful, are against consensus, and are, frankly, just plain erroneous. You are also attacking a talented and gracious editor with well over a dozen GA and FA articles to her credit, and further, as you will note below, she is spending a lot of time with other editors discussing sources and material that are making a REAL contribution to the article. Personally, I am NOT the lead editor, only a person who has done a little copyediting here and there on this article, and in that role, I consider myself someone who is not in a heavy research and crunching of raw material role, and I'd like to spare Dana the work of dealing with this nonsense so that she can focus on the article itself. If you want to actually be useful, how about making sure each sentence of the lead is reflected in the body of the text, with citations there as needed? Or maybe helping cite check the stuff noted below per WP:V and see if it can be used? The lead may have to be re-edited anyway if other information in the body of the article changes, so it really makes no sense to fuss over it endlessly now. Montanabw (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The term 'lead editor' is an informal (and reasonable) one. See this tool to get an idea who might reasonable be considered to fulfill that role. It is not an issue of ownership, rather it amounts to a courtesy afforded those making significant efforts on the article itself (as opposed to only posting to the talk page). This article is looking pretty good, although I'll admit I've only read about half of it and half of this talk page. I'd be glad to help the article along as I can and will sort any disruption I find on this talk page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox
Rather than start a separate sandbox, and certainly rather than just amend the article, I'll post a suggested lead version here. There was some tautology in the original (eg "logistical supply" and "mechanised armoured divisions") and some other repetitions. I would also question the statement that the United Kingdom continued to use mounted infantry and cavalry charges throughout the war. This certainly needs a source. Also the statement on the relative value of a horse to a human. Someone must have said it, but it's an extraordinary statement. We need to know who it was.

This is not a perfect version either, it's just a step. I hope we can proceed collegially and civilly towards a better result.

''The use of Horses in World War I changed as the needs of the conflict evolved. All the major combatants initially considered horse-mounted cavalry units essential, but over the course of the war, perceptions of the horses’ value changed as armored divisions took over many of the horses’ previous roles.

''Germany and Austria-Hungary stopped using cavalry on the Western Front early in the war. The United States used cavalry for a limited time, while the United Kingdom continued to use mounted infantry and cavalry charges throughout the war. While cavalry was not particularly successful on the Western Front, where trench warfare and new developments in weaponry played a major role, Allied cavalry had some success in the Palestinian theatre, particularly the mounted forces from Australia, though partially because they faced a weaker and less technologically-advanced enemy. Russia used cavalry on the Eastern Front, although with little success.''

''In the field of logistics, it was found that horses could travel in mud and through terrain where mechanized vehicles could not. They were used for reconnaissance and they carried messengers; they pulled artillery, ambulances and supply wagons, and performed many other tasks necessary to the war effort. Their presence at the front often increased morale among the soldiers. The value of horses for these tasks and the increased difficulty in replacing them was such that by 1917, the loss of a horse was considered to be of greater tactical concern than the loss of a human soldier. In fact, because the Allies prevented the import of horses by the Central Powers, a lack of horses contributed to Germany's loss of the war.''

''Many horses at the front were killed by artillery fire, suffered from skin disorders, or were injured by poison gas. Due to their significance to the war, several memorials have been erected to commemorate the horses who died.''

Send to body of text: Artist Alfred Munnings extensively documented the work of horses in the war, and author Michael Morpurgo wrote a novel on a cavalry horse in the war which has subsequently been turned into a play.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumiton (talk • contribs) diff

Comments
Personally, I think it would be a mistake to lose the stuff on Munnings and Morpurgo. The images, and more recently Morpurgo's book and subsequent adaptations have brought this subject to a new generation, and show the ongoing resonance of the subject. David Underdown (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A longer reply when I get home tonight, but basically, I agree with David Underdown. Rumiton, leads don't need citations, and everything in the lead is already referenced (believe me, I wrote most of it and checked all of it) in the body. UK troops (including Brits, ANZAC and Canadians) were infamous for their cavalry charges throughout the war - the Brits especially had a bunch of hard-line cavalry commanders who still thought that horses were a good idea on a battlefield filled with machine guns and barbed wire and sent them into suicidal charges. I have explained this several times, and added increasing numbers of references backing this up to the body of the article. Also, comments like "send to the body of the text" for information in the lead that is summarizing information already in the body makes it seem like you haven't read the article, simply looked at the lead. A third point is that the proposed lead is too short. However, there are a few good suggestions, and I plan to go through tonight to make sure that the lead is still a representative sample of the information presented in the body, since quite a bit has been added to the body since the lead was written pre-GA review. As I said, more tonight. Dana boomer (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right, I didn't have time to study the text. The book refs don't matter much. If they are evidence of significant new interest in the subject, then they should stay. I'll go ahead now and look at the refs for the Brit cavalry charges. I can't imagine them happening after 1914, when the war settled down to a stalemate, but if they did, they did. WW1 was full of tragic contradictions like that. Rumiton (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now gone through the lead and double checked to make sure that it thoroughly and correctly summarizes the article. This has resulted in the lead growing a bit, but this is to be expected, as the body of the article has grown since I originally wrote the lead. I don't think that a lot of your cuts would benefit the lead. For example, you cut most of the first sentence. The fact that horse use in World War I "reflected a transitional period in the evolution of armed conflict" is a crucial statement that is discussed and fully sourced in the body of the article. Not only did the use of horses change during World War I, but those changes were a major part of the de-horsing of war over the 19th and 20th centuries. Also, I'm not really convinced of the "tautologies" you claim. Logistics is (to borrow the wiki's definition) "the management of the flow of goods, information and other resources, including energy and people, between the point of origin and the point of consumption in order to meet the requirements of consumers". Horses help this management, and therefore by definition they are supporting logistics, i.e. in logistical support. Also, with the phrase "mechanized armored divisions" we are trying to emphasize that the non-mechanized, non-armored horse was replaced by divisions that are both. I would ask you to please read the entire article, look at the sourcing, and then, only at that point, make comments on whether the article thoroughly and correctly summarizes the body. It's really not fair to ask for sourcing or changes when you don't know what is trying to be summarized. Dana boomer (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dana, these emphases you have made have the effect of making the article much difficult to read than you might realise. The possible tiny gains in nuance are over-balanced by the very real likelihood that nobody will take the time and effort to read the article. Which would be a shame. Rumiton (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Rumiton, I don't agree with you, and none of the others who have read the article and commented on this page have had an issue with it either. I really don't think that an extra few words will make it a "very real likelihood" that people won't read the article. However, honestly, a lot of people searching for information on a topic never go past the lead of an article, and so I would like the lead of this article to be as good of a summary as possible. The first paragraph (which seems to be the one that you have the largest issue with) is by far the most important in pointing out the huge changes in usage that horses experienced during this war, and as this information really is the gist of the entire article boiled down to one paragraph, there's not much more that can be cut out, IMO. So far, the consensus seems to have been that more information needs to be added (to both the lead and the body) rather than removed. I'm sorry that you feel the way you do, but among the editors that are commenting on this talk page, your opinion seems to be in the minority. Btw, have you had a chance yet to read through the whole article? Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article has had a tremendous amount of re-review and further debate is merely debate for its own sake. It's time to get the GA review back on track. Montanabw (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Montana, as I have said before, none of the editors commenting on the talk page are taking up the GA review. That means that this is simply discussion that could happen on the talk page of any article, GAN or not, and has no impact on the GA review. I have been working on getting another GA reviewer, but most of the normal MILHIST reviewers are busy in RL at the moment and so that's being a bit difficult. The "further debate" has had the effect of improving the article, especially through the new sources that Carcaroth and David have provided, so that I will be willing to take the article to A-class review within a few days of it being passed at GAN - something I could not have said before. The only way the GA review will get "back on track" is through finding another reviewer, so if you would like to start dropping messages to people, I would be happy to have them! Dana boomer (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll tip off some reviewers. I'm just tired of one person who can't even be bothered to read the article being so disruptive here, that's all. Montanabw (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, that is going too far. Accusing someone of being disruptive is serious. I suggest you reread my contributions and decide if you really want to make that accusation. If so, we need to go to Request for Comment as a first step towards resolving the problem. Rumiton (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rumiton and Montana, please both calm down. There is no need to go to a RfC just because of a few sentences in the lead. I understand both of your points of view, but please remember - it's not that big of a deal!!! Montana, a few sentences in the lead is not going to derail the GA review; Rumiton, I don't believe you're being disruptive and I understand what your point is, but I simply don't agree with it. I have done some more work on the lead to hopefully make it easier to read, and I will continue to look over it every day or so with an eye towards cutting redundancy, making it flow better, and making it easier to read. I hope we can work through this in a civil manner. Dana boomer (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, I've been looking this all over and am concerned. There seems to be more than a grain of salt to the notion that you're being disruptive here. The first step in sorting this is talk, which people seem to have spent a bit of time with re yourself and your posts here. You should be grateful that you're afford such courtesy. What say you to the idea that you're being a tad disruptive here? It would be nice if you acknowledged that folks have gone out of their way to even read your posts and to then take the time away from what they would otherwise be doing to reply to you and to adjust the article to satisfy you. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to step back again now that others are weighing in. Rumilton, if you have issues with me personally, take them to my talk page or yours and we can discuss them there.  No sense disrupting this article further over what were my sincere attempts to defend someone else.   Montanabw (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jack, I don't think I was being disruptive. I have not made any edits to the article, just suggestions on the talk page. I was accused of "running to an admin" but I only asked him if there was any validity to the title being used here of "lead editor" which I had never heard before. I politely asked the editors here what it meant first, but was not convinced by their explanation. He replied that it only applied to the limited situation of someone representing a team of editors in a GA application. I did not even invite him to look at this article, nor even mention it, he must have looked at my recent contributions list and dropped in by himself. Having said that, I could have invited him. Admins are not school prefects who might get someone in trouble with the headmaster, they are just particularly helpful editors, which I think JN was here. (BTW I am not even sure if JN is an admin, most of them don't advertise it.) You say I should be grateful that folks have gone out of their way to even read your posts. This is a bit disturbing, and perhaps it goes back to the same "lead editor" misconception. All Wikipedia editors are equal and should be welcomed, even if they seem to be challenging a status quo or questioning the writing style of a much worked-on article. Anyway, I think the recent changes are a great improvement. Thanks for your openness, Dana. I will take this article off my watchlist now. If anyone wants to discuss any of these issues, you will be made welcome at my talk page. Rumiton (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rumiton, I think it wise that you've taken this page off your watchlist. A reasonable outcome, IMO. I saw the dialogue you had with Jayen, who is not an admin, btw. If you find my comments disturbing, I'm sorry. Please avoid actions that might warrant further discussion along those lines. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 22:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

More sources and ideas
I'm not getting involved in the GA review and the debates elsewhere on this talk page, but I did find a whole chapter about horses in World War I in the book I was reading recently, and a few other ideas as well, so I'll put them here. I'm afraid I got a bit carried away, but think of it as ideas for taking this to A-class level or something (as Dana says above).

1) Mud, Blood and Poppycock (Gordon Corrigan, 2003) - chapter 5, "Government-Sponsored Polo Clubs" - focused on the British horses stuff, but some comparisons with France and Germany, and lots of excellent stats referenced to the primary sources. If you want more details, let me know and I'll try and figure out what can be summarised and condensed (some of it is already in the article, some is not).

The stats Corrigan gives are: Outbreak of war: 25,000 horses, raised to 165,000 on mobilisation. By August 1915, over half a million horses, 368,000 in France and Belgium, and 82,000 mules. By 1917 (the peak), it was 591,324 horses, 231,149 mules. On other fronts, there were in addition to horses, 47,0000 camels, 11,000 oxen, and 6,800 donkeys. Corrigan's source is Statistics of the Military Efforts of the British Empire during the Great War, War Office, London, 1922. Corrigan makes the points that much of this was logistics (moving equipment and guns), and also that horses were essential for battlefield communication where telephone lines had not been laid down, or had been cut, as wireless was not yet reliable enough, but that this all changed continuously during the war as new technologies were developed and improved. Corrigan also gives a detailed description of several actions where cavalry were involved. I can't find all of them described in articles here (actions were probably too minor), but did find this. All probably too detailed for this and more suitable for a "Cavalry actions on the Western Front in World War I" article, but I thought you would be interested. Corrigan does talk about a missed opportunity by the Germans on the Italian Front, where a cavalry action could have cut off retreating Italian troops. He also gives some German and French stats: Germans mobilised 11 cavalry divisions, 10 of which were deployed to the Western Front. The French mobilised 11 cavalry divisions.
 * Thanks for this! I will look through it and work on integrating some into the article!

I haven't covered everything here. I would recommend reading this chapter if you can get hold of a copy of the book.

2) Horses and artworks in WWI

Probably lots more out there.
 * http://www.first-world-war.com/battle_of_le_cateau.htm
 * Appears to be a sales site, which is generally not considered reliable. Most of the prints on that page seem to be images that were taken from an out-of-copyright book. I didn't see anything on the page that said what book it was, but if we could find that information we could take the information from that book, and quite possibly scan the images into WP, if they are indeed out of copyright.

This looks interesting:

Here as well:
 * http://www.art-ww1.com/gb/visite.html
 * http://www.art-ww1.com/gb/texte/034text.html
 * http://www.art-ww1.com/gb/texte/015text.html
 * Interesting, and it looks reliable as a major museum site from what I can tell. I will take a longer look at this later.

Plus more in the individual battles.
 * http://www.first-world-war.com/original_paintings.htm
 * http://www.first-world-war.com/ww1_cavalry_actions.htm
 * Same as above per this site. It would be great if we could get photos of some of these (I'm assuming they're in museums somewhere?) to add to the article, some of them are really nice, but I'm really iffy on the reliability of the site.

Famous one is: Umberto Boccioni, Charge of the Lancers, 1915:

Also:
 * http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=1659
 * I'm iffy about the reliability of this site. It's run by a guy who claims it to be a "hobby" and whose qualifications include a BS in Computer Engineering. This painting would be nice to include though, as would many of the others, in a somewhat expanded art paragraph of the legacy section.

"Goodbye My Old Friend" by Fortunino Matania is also famous.
 * http://www.regimental-art.com/rha_great_war.htm
 * Run by the same people as the first-world-war.com site

"The Blue Cross painting is one of Fortunio Matania's most famous [...] In 1916 The Blue Cross Fund commissioned Matania to paint a scene subtitled An incident on the road to a battery position in Southern Flanders to raise money to relieve the suffering of war horses in Europe. Over one million horses saw service with the British Army in WW1. A year later, the Fund paid £129.67 for Goodbye Old Man and it was published in countless magazines worldwide during the war and afterwards."
 * http://www.bluecross.org.uk/web/site/News/2006/Blue-Cross-painting-exhibited.asp
 * Looks like a good site, run by a respected charity. I will look at this one a bit later with the aim of aiding something to the article.

Also called "Goodbye Old Man".

More here:
 * http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Matania_3/Matania_19.htm
 * I'm still not convinced of the reliability of this site, or the reliability of the war-time publications it's re-printing. However, there is quite a bit of information there if it is reliable. I will drop a note to one of the FAC source experts on this site.
 * http://www.civilisations.ca/cwm/exhibitions/munnings/cwmb1eng.shtml
 * There's already a bit in the article on Munnings (in the legacy section). Do you think that more needs to be added?

Another photograph:
 * http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/War_Horses/War_Horses_01.htm
 * http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/War_Horses/Horses_01.htm
 * http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Matania_3/Matania_19.htm
 * http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Matania/Matania_01.htm
 * Same as above. Will report when the answer comes through!

3) Horses and poetry in WWI
 * http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ww1lit/gwa/item/5195
 * Nice! This is a good one. Will take a look through for informationt to add - think we can upload that photo?

That forum discussion quotes two poems: (a) "An Appeal", by 'Scots Greys', with the opening words "I'm only a cavalry charger"; and (b) "A Soldier's Kiss" by Henry Chappell, opening words are "Only a dying horse!" The latter is a real tear-jerker, but really beautiful. Not sure how many sources have tackled head-on the subject of WWI horse poetry. You might find some references, or something on poetry about animals in war in general.
 * http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t58618.html
 * While not reliable in and of itself, it provides some good leads. I'll do some digging.

More poetry:

That's more than enough! Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://beck.library.emory.edu/greatwar/poetry/view.php?id=eaton_Eaton143
 * Very nice! It looks like a few sentences on poetry is needed.
 * Thanks for all of those Carcharoth! There's a few of them that I really don't think are reliable, a few that I need to ask a source expert on, and a few that I would love to use. At this point I'm thinking of expanding the legacy section with another paragraph or so, with a bit more information on paintings and some on poetry, using some of the sources presented above. I think we don't want to get too detailed in that section, given this is supposed to be about what the horses themselves did, but the feelings that the men had for the work those horses did also deserves a small spot, IMO. I'll keep this section up to date with what stuff I add, feel free to add more sources (stuff on continental Europe, especially the Central Powers, would be much, much, much appreciated!). Dana boomer (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, thanks again for the sources. I've added some information to the Legacy section regarding the art and poetry - would you take a look and see what you think? Also, would there be any chance that you could scan the relevant pages from the book and e-mail them to me? I don't have access to the book except through ILL, which I can do if I need to, but if I could get a scan that would be even better (and cheaper...!). Dana boomer (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great, though you need to make clear that Roger de La Fresnaye's Artillery was pre-war (1911). If you want a more reliable source than the one above for the poem that went with the Goodbye Old Man Mantania painting, see here. It is called A Soldier's Kiss by Henry Chappell (1874-1937). Chappell is most famous for his poem The Day (published in 1914), and he produced an anthology The Day and Other Poems (1918). I mentioned the "Saving the guns at Le Cateau" painting above - we have an article on the artist Terence Cuneo, and it was not a contemporary painting (Cuneo was born in 1907), but Cuneo was commissioned to do the painting by the Royal Artillery (because it depicts a scene where several Victoria Crosses were won) and the original hangs in the regimental mess (I'm writing from memory here). In other words, if you look at the commissions from regimental artillery and cavalry units, then that might give a few more examples. Personally, I think the Cuneo example is a nice one, not just because of the Victoria Crosses, but because it shows how some paintings are later reconstructions (like many of the famous paintings of the past are). But without a more reliable source, we are stuck - I can't even find out what year he did the painting, but I'm sure some Royal Artillery historian will know more than enough about this (I will dig a bit more as well and if I find a reliable source will drop it off here). Oh, one more thing: you use the phrase "war horse" sometimes in the context of horses that pulled guns and supplies. I think that the term war horse should be limited to those bred and trained for charges or pure cavalry use, but possibly the terminology was fluid at that time. Corrigan does talk about how horses were (before the pressures of war messed things up a bit) specifically selected to be either cavalry or work horses. Talking of the Corrigan book, I'll see what I can do about that book chapter - can't promise anything. Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've switched out Artillery (didn't realize it was pre-war, thanks for pointing that out) for Le Cateau. I think I found a decent source, but check the entry and see what you think. Added a bit on the Soldier's Kiss poem. Also, the term war horse can be used to describe any sort of horse in war - artillery or cavalry - although it is generally used more to describe cavalry. I've done a bit of copyediting in the article to remove some of the usages of it, let me know if there are futher issues with it. Dana boomer (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

One of Munnings' paintings is here, called Charge of Flowerdew's Squadron, painted around 1918 (obviously after the battle depicted). Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually already have a Canadian War Museum reference that includes that image (#23 I think). I really don't want to get into a huge list of the paintings and poems of the war, since I'm sure there were hundreds. If you come across any sources on paintings/poems done by Central Powers people, that would be quite helpful, though, as it would be nice to say something along the lines of "combatants on both sides of the war memorialized their equine companions in paintings and poems(ref)(ref)". Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Types of horses used by the British Army in WWI
Remember, this is only British Army stuff, but still informative, I think (all from the Corrigan book chapter mentioned above).

The UK government's Board of Agriculture and Fisheries published in 1912 Types of Horses Suitable for Army Remounts. The army needed four types of horses for: riding; pulling field guns; pulling heavy guns; and pulling transport wagons. There were subcategories of these four main categories as well, as horses for officers would be lighter than for a heavier (fully laden) cavalry trooper. Some officers brought their own horses to war with them, but (as you say in the article already) these thoroughbreds were more high-strung and more easily shocked and spooked by the conditions encountered. So officer horses were 'light hunter' horses; artillery horses were the 'light draught' type; heavy artillery was pulled by 'heavy draught' shire horses (carthorses); transport horses were of the 'parcel-vanner' type (I hope these 'types' make sense! I think field hunter, rather than show hunter, and draft horse and packhorse, but I dunno what a 'parcel van' horse means here, other than the obvious). Grey and multicoloured horses were dyed dark colours with vegetable dyes when the war began, to aid camouflage. Expansion from 25,000 to 165,000 was done by impounding civilian horses (remember, Britain still had many, many, many horses in those days) and paying the owners for them. Corrigan quotes a figure saying that 17% of the civilian horse population was "sequestered" in this fashion. After that, horses were purchased abroad (Canada, USA, South America, and mules from Spain and Portugal). Then you had transport to the UK by ship, quarantine and training. Part of the reason horses were valuable was because for some purposes it took longer to train a horse than a man!


 * Questions: Page numbers please, or at least general ranges? Also, any more detail on training times/reasons?

The full chapter (which covers much more than this) is 22 pages. Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Copying the first set of this information here so I can ask all of my questions in the same section:

The stats Corrigan gives are: Outbreak of war: 25,000 horses, raised to 165,000 on mobilisation. By August 1915, over half a million horses, 368,000 in France and Belgium, and 82,000 mules. By 1917 (the peak), it was 591,324 horses, 231,149 mules. On other fronts, there were in addition to horses, 47,0000 camels, 11,000 oxen, and 6,800 donkeys. Corrigan's source is Statistics of the Military Efforts of the British Empire during the Great War, War Office, London, 1922. Corrigan makes the points that much of this was logistics (moving equipment and guns), and also that horses were essential for battlefield communication where telephone lines had not been laid down, or had been cut, as wireless was not yet reliable enough, but that this all changed continuously during the war as new technologies were developed and improved. Corrigan also gives a detailed description of several actions where cavalry were involved. I can't find all of them described in articles here (actions were probably too minor), but did find this. All probably too detailed for this and more suitable for a "Cavalry actions on the Western Front in World War I" article, but I thought you would be interested. Corrigan does talk about a missed opportunity by the Germans on the Italian Front, where a cavalry action could have cut off retreating Italian troops. He also gives some German and French stats: Germans mobilised 11 cavalry divisions, 10 of which were deployed to the Western Front. The French mobilised 11 cavalry divisions.


 * Questions: Again, page ranges? Are those first statistics Britain only, all Allies, or everyone? Any more information about the German action?

Carcharoth, I hope the way I've formatted this with my questions makes sense. There are a few pieces of information in each section that I would like to add into the article, but need page numbers and a little bit more information on a few points before I start. Please feel free to reformat if this is too confusing! Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remind me in a few days if I forget about this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Middle East stuff
FYI that I tweaked some wikilinks on the Middle East because I found more wikilinks and the Mesopotamian campaign actually was in Iraq, not Palestine, while most of the action discussed in the article was in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. Your one source that read "Mesopotamia" I tweaked to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I to cover the whole area (in that context, it sounds like the general area...), but if the author really WAS discussing modern-day Iraq, you could replace with the Mesopotamian campaign link above. (I'll let you figure out what your source was saying, but if not clear, I'd keep the generic)  I also used the general Middle Eastern theatre term in the lead too, because that will cover everything...from the Mesopotamian campaign article, looks like the cavalry was there too, with mixed success. Hope this was all a help and not a hinderance. Montanabw (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)