Talk:12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia)/Archive 1

Battle honours for Egypt 1915-16

This is linked to the Raid on the Suez Canal which the 12th Light Horse Regiment did not take part in? --Rskp (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I've removed the link. Is there an article you feel that it should be linked to? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be a better link: Egypt 1915-16. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually the 12th LHR was awarded the battle honour Egypt 1915-17 (not 1915-16, which the article correctly reflects). According to Rodger (2003) Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces 1662-1991, p. 187 this honour relates to "Service in Egypt" over the period 26 Jan 15 - 08 Feb 17. Not sure if this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

G'day, yes, apologies "Egypt 1915-16" was a typo on my part above. Festberg and the AWM source also support that the battle honour as "Egypt 1915-17". Do you have an opinion on the link? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You weren't the only one :-)! Anyway in the absence of anything more appropriate I think that link is probably the closest, if still a little imprecise. Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

POV

This article has been written virtually from a single reference. About 50 of the 74 odd citations are from Hollis' regimental history. How could this article be described in the GAR; "It follows the neutral point of view policy, [giving] a (fair representation): [and covering] b (all significant views), when only five citations are for the official Australian history, none of which point to Gullett's description of the 12th LHR's capture of Beersheba. --Rskp (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Rskp, you raise a fair point about a heavy reliance on Hollis, although I believe that the work is authoritative (based on the acknowledgements in the book and on the back cover the author spent ten years researching the topic and had access a wide range of sources including the unit's war diaries, the official histories and interviews with members who were there). If you believe that the article's description of events at Beesheba or elsewhere is lacking in some regard, please list the specifics here and we can discuss how to address them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

RoslynSKP - the sources used here appear to be the most up to date. Indeed Hollis was written in 2008 and doubtless benefits from the official history and the considerable scholarship that has been undertaken in the 90 years since it was written. Are you seriously trying to say that Gullett, written in 1923, is the definitive work in this area and should be used more heavily? Seems a fairly tenuous posn. Anotherclown (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I've added a bit from the above, although Hollis seems to mirror Gullett in most places that I can see. I will probably add a bit more over the weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The title of this thread is outrageous. Its not a question of POV but one of whether the sources used reflect the literature available. It looks quite well referenced to me so don't waste your time (Personal attack removed)[rm disputed text].— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.90.240.126 (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I quite agree (Personal attack removed)[rm disputed text]. Anotherclown (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The "fighting around Beersheba" to describe the regiment's one specific role in this major battle, the scale of which is not even alluded to, is inadequate. Its a major failing of the article to simply describe what the regiment was doing and ignore all the other units around them. For instance, in that section of the 12th LHR article, the para starts off as if the regiment was sidelined from May to October when the entire EEF was stalemated. When I mentioned Gullett I was mainly thinking of his description of the capture of Beersheba which is pretty good and only partly used here, though the war diary sketch does not support his three lines of squadrons. There is no description of the enemy fire from Ras Ghannam which accounted for many of their casualties. The 20 killed and 19 wounded on the day (see war diaries) probably became the 24 killed and 15 wounded. If this is so then it should be clarified. There is more detail of the 2nd Gaza attack at Attawineh than the famous charge. Coulthard-Clark and Perry are relied on to say the battle by the XX Corps and Desert Mounted Corps 30 miles away, was in some way part of the third battle of Gaza fought by the XXI Corps, which it clearly was not, geographically. Nor did the two corps at Beersheba have any part in Gaza or visa versa. Allenby's force orders make it clear the attacks on Beersheba, etc. and Gaza were all part of his push towards Jerusalem. The significance of the water, although widely claimed to be the reason for the attack on Beersheba, overlooks the wedge it gave Allenby to advance up the coast or directly to Bethlehem. The steady push after Beersheba simply did not happen, and writes out all the fighting for the Gaza to Beersheba line. It was over a week of fighting and lulls and preparations etc. before the line was broken and the pursuit began. Sheria attack occurred on 6 and 7 November while Et Tine occurred at the end of the first phase of seven days of pursuit on 14 November during which a great deal of fighting occurred, yet between Sheria and Et Tine nothing is mentioned and the 'without firing a shot' is a misrepresentation of the fighting during those days. Battle of Mughar Ridge which describes operations from 9 to 16 November is not linked or mentioned, yet its been a GA since before this article was submitted for GA. Hollis is used as the source of the idea that the 12th met no resistance in early December. Where? How come? Why didn't they advance to occupy Jerusalem then? Why did they stay in position if there was no resistance? This does not make sense on any level. Hollis gives a completely 12th LHR centric view of large scale battles which completely write out the other units involved. Hollis says Jerusalem was captured on 29 December, when it was occupied on 9 December. What is Hollis' source for the proposed Haifa attack? Yes, even Allenby refers to the transjordan attacks as raids, but he was writing after the battle of Megiddo and capture of Damascus, when they would have looked like raids. Es Salt was a second attempt to capture Amman, which the first time very nearly succeeded. The article is written as if the Sinai and Palestine Campaign only occurred while the 12thLHR was doing something, there are few links to campaign articles, which should be added. I could go on, but I think you get my drift. --Rskp (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is written as if the Sinai and Palestine Campaign only occurred while the 12thLHR was doing something... Well it is called the 12th Light Horse Regiment what else would you expect it to cover. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it seems self evident that the article would focus on the actions of the unit in question, rather than providing a detailed account of every battle in the campaign in which it participated. Quite appropriately it uses summary style to cover the wider events, which are of course covered in detail elsewhere, while all interpretations are referenced to reliable sources. Just the usual bleating about minute detail based on outdated sources, to put forward her own interpretation of the events which she seems to place above that of many historians of some note. Anotherclown (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

The article can be structured along these lines:

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

There is no requirement for a description of operations and I suggest that in order to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide that this information be cut from the article. --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

First that is just a guide not policy and just what part of In what notable battles, operations, or wars did the unit participate? and Where and how has the unit served in peacetime and war did you not understand.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The need to include notable battles, operations, or wars, and where and how has the unit served in peacetime and war, does not call for a WP:POV retelling of the entire campaign. --Rskp (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Anotherclown I remind you of the need to be polite on this talk page. As you continue to make personal attacks, I will continue to cut them. AustralianRupert I listed some of the problems found in this article a couple of days ago, which I was surprised to find were not addressed during the GAR, and await the discussion you suggested. --Rskp (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is not about the campaign but the 12th Light Horse, what parts do you believe are wrong? Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@RoslynSKP: G'day, I have tried to rework the article to respond to your initial suggestions to expand the article, but your follow up posts seem to be arguing that information should now be removed (please correct me if I've misinterpreted what you are saying). Additionally, you also seem to be labelling it as having a point of view issue because it focuses mainly on the 12th LH. I'm sorry, but I do not agree with your interpretation. Most unit articles at GA and above will include a detailed account of the unit's involvement in operations and will focus on recounting the operations from the subject unit's perspective. The full recount of the operation/battle belongs in the specific article dealing with the operation/battle. (If you are interested you can find other GA unit history articles here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Units.) I appreciate that you are interested in the topic – if only everyone cared that much Wikipedia would be much better place – and I thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts, but I don't think that I can address your concerns further. I remain convinced that Hollis is the definitive work in relation to the history of the 12th LH Regt and I am not of the opinion that removing information from the article would be an improvement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I see no issue with POV here (nor any issue with the sources used) and neither does anyone else so far (except of cse the editor that started the thread). Indeed it seems to stem from a fairly basic misunderstanding of our core policies (the contradiction b/n the first post and last one is fairly obvious). Of course I don't expect that my opinion means much here so I've asked other editors to have a look (see here [1]). RoslynSKP - I am more than prepared to be judged by my comments so I have to wonder why you feel the need to remove any post that is even remotely critical of your conduct. Is it really that difficult to accept that others disagree with you? Would have thought you would be fairly used to that by now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my opinion won't count for much in the grand scheme, my experience with GA being limited to the authorship of one GA and the review of exactly zero, but I found the article to be well written and concise. The problem of POV being claimed by using limited sources is leavened by the fact that there are other sources cited in most areas of the article and the style of writing does an excellent description of what the unit was doing, where, why and in most instances how. The article answered all of my questions about the unit that I needed and should do an excellent job of doing the same for the casual reader that wants know something about the subject. In my limited experience I have found that writing about a subject that has limited references one has to chose even more carefully among those used by examining the reference's bibliography and footnotes to see what sources were used to support the work. While I don't have access to Hollis' work, If Rupert says that Hollis' book was well researched by using unit histories and interviews, then I believe him. As for content in the article about the 12thLHR being involved in certain actions, I believe that it is well covered in this article. As a reader, I would want to know how the 12th fit into the over all action, but if I want detailed information about the overall battle, I would expect to find that elsewhere. That is what article links are for and that is why there is a "See also" section in most articles that are B-class or better. If someone has better referencing or different information about the 12thLHR then let them put it in the article or at least reveal their sources so that the article can be made more accurate or readable for the user. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about anyway? Cuprum17 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article as someone with no previous knowledge of the subject under discussion, I see no POV on the article page, but undue incivility by more than one editor on this page. It is easy to use <ref name=reference I've used before> instead of <ref>new reference</ref>, but there's nothing wrong with doing it if the reference meets encyclopedia standards.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert, my first concern has always been with the neutrality of the article, which I can see you have made significant attempts to redress. There are now, however, a lot of pineapples (is that what they are called) covering the links to engagements which cloud the issue and would be better uncovered. There are also a number of articles which could be usefully linked to this article including the occupation of the Jordan Valley, the Battle of Jisr Benat Yakub, and the ‪Battle of Tel el Khuweilfe‬. They may already be linked but I couldn't find them. Thank you for the link to the list of GA units. The few I looked at had quite succinct descriptions of notable battles, operations, or wars, and where and how the unit served in peacetime and war. So I remain slightly concerned by the length and detail of your descriptions of the campaign. I was surprised you thought I suggested the article be expanded, and was equally surprised by this edit described as an expansion [2] which left the two paras about the same length as before. --Rskp (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The joint Capture of Tiberias by part of the 12th and part of the 3rd LHB is described in two conflicting sentences, one from Gullett (El Menarah being just outside Tiberias, although nobody would know without going back to Gullett) and one from Hollis, without a link to the Wikipedia article. Interestingly, the 12th LHR war diary does not mention El Menarah. It is surprising this confusion was not picked up during the GAR (not the link as I don't know the article was in existence at the time). --Rskp (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: the article generally reads well as it presently stands. I don't detect any POV; understandably, the focus is on the unit and therefore this is reflected in the discussion of the battles in which it is involved. Like Cuprum17 suggests above, for greater context readers will follow the links to the articles on the various battles. I don't have an issue with the sources used either if they are reliable and I have no reason to doubt their reliability. Zawed (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

G'day, thanks all for the feedback. A couple of responses: I've added a few more links as suggested and believe I've fixed the issue of conflicting sentences around the regiment's entering of Tiberias. (Good catch, btw). The reason it wasn't mention at the GA review was because it was introduced to the article after the review (a few days ago by myself). I used the edit summary of "expansion" for this edit - [3] - (as queried above) because it increased the size of the article from 4520 words of readable prose to 4613 words of readable prose. Negligible I agree, but it seems like an expansion to me. Regarding the issue of the railway, thank you for the link. I have reworded the sentence to the following: "around Jiljulah and Kalkileh on the railway line that stretched north in the direction of Haifa", as I think that should hopefully be a compromise between the two sources which seem to conflict in their interpretation. Btw, I think WP:EASTEREGG is what you mean when you say "pineapple". I've made an attempt to make "piped links as intuitive as possible" (as per the policy), but will have another go tonight after work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Questioning GA quality

This article rambles, trying to cover too much information. See the 29th Battalion (Australia) for a GA unit article which is succinct but clear, while still being comprehensive. --Rskp (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you truly believe this article is not up to GA standard, then you request a reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I can also direct you to several GA articles that ramble and try to cover to much information. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, Jim Sweeney. --Rskp (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, the guidance at Wikipedia:Article size is as follows: "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50 kB and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style." The prose size script (which can be found here) shows that this page is "29 kB (4889 words) readable prose size". It would seem to me then, that it fits within the parameters outlined in the policy/guideline. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Again you misunderstand me AustralianRupert. When I suggested the article was POV you thought I meant it should be expanded! Now I suggest that the article rambles, you think I meant it was too long! My record for long articles makes it impossible that I should accuse anyone else of writing long articles. No, I think it rambles. Bear in mind that there is the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article and all the associated articles, which, admittedly are not complete and the quality needs a lot of work, still ... Why all the easter eggs when the names of the operations are not disputed? Don't you think Beersheba was a battle? What battle did the charge take place during - none are named? Yet you refer to one. The way you have written it, its not clear nor concise. --Rskp (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I note the subsection on Gallipoli is clear and concise, so why the change of style? --Rskp (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you will find that AustralianRupert has linked the Beersheba battle that way for ease of reading rather than to diminish its importance - which I think is the point you are trying to argue? It is difficult to tell. RE your P.S: you do realise that at Gallipoli, the 12th were used in quite a different way to the Sinai Campaign? And the nature of the fighting was different - Gallipoli was very much static warfare in contrast to Sinai and Palestine? Frankly, I find your recent criticisms of this article puzzling, inconsistent, and probably unjustified. Zawed (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• No Zawed, I was not trying to argue for the importance of the Battle of Beersheba. Oh, yes I know that the 12th Light Horse Regiment fought quite differently at Gallipoli - for one they had no horses. You might be interested to read the article about the battle of Beersheba, which would give you a solid basis to understand the problems I have with this article. --Rskp (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"Oh, yes I know that the 12th Light Horse Regiment fought quite differently at Gallipoli - for one they had no horses." Well Rskp, I think you have your explanation for the differences between the Gallipoli and Sinai sections, don't you? Zawed (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day again, yes, when I wrote the article, I linked Beersheba as "it took part in an attack on Beersheba" for ease of reading and conciseness of writing. There were, of course, other ways it could be linked such as " when it took part in the Battle of Beersheba", but my interpretation of WP:EASTEREGG is that does not require links to be completely unmasked. It states the following: "Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on". The key requirement is that the link is intuitive. I personally think that readers will understand what "an attack on Beersheba" means, so I'm happy it meets the requirement to be "intuitive", but nevertheless, I've had another go at it. Regarding the change in style between the Gallipoli section and later, Zawed's comment correctly summarises the situation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

One consequence of these eastereggs is confusion between which battle the 12th Light Horse fought in - the third Gaza or Beersheba. I've had a go at clarifying it and the battle, importing some info from the Battle of Beersheba article. Hope you don't mind, but I have tried to communicate my concerns on a number of occasions. --Rskp (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't see that you have raised concerns about confusion between third Gaza or Beersheba previously on this page. I don't know if your changes have helped: "Conceived as part of an attack towards the Jerusalem to Jaffa line..."; what is this attack? It is not linked. Zawed (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree even if it is cited that's a huge jump, the previous joining an attack that was conceived as part of preliminary flanking actions leading to a third attempt to capture Gaza. is correct with everything I have ever read on the battle and campaign. But I will agree that Allenby was under orders were to occupy a line between Jaffa-Jerusalem but that was in the longer term and the Prime Minister/War Office objective. You could have equally conceived as part of an attack to defeat the Ottoman Empire. Correct but out of context. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Rskp, I have added the full bibliographic details of the Falls ref you have added; however, I am only guessing based on what is in the Battle of Beersheba article. Can you please check that I have added the correct one and adjust if necessary? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)