Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:55, 1 November 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: South Pacific / Middle East / World War I This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force World War I task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New Zealand Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Military history Mid‑importance [REDACTED] ANZAC Mounted Division is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. [REDACTED] The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Egypt This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Anzac Mounted Division ANZAC Mounted Division Discussions: Anzac Mounted Division → ANZAC Mounted Division, Moved, 8 June 2010, "No discussion" RM, ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division, Declined, 31 January 2012, Talk:ANZAC Mounted_Division/Archive 1#Requested move 1 RM, ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division, no consensus, 13 September 2013, Talk:ANZAC Mounted_Division/Archive 1#Requested move 2 MRV, ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division, Close endorsed, 5 October 2013, Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2013 October#ANZAC Mounted Division .28closed.29 RM, ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division, Procedural close, 16 October 2013, Talk:ANZAC Mounted_Division/Archive 1#Requested move 3 RM, ANZAC Mounted Division → Anzac Mounted Division, Procedural close, 18 October 2013, Talk:ANZAC Mounted_Division/Archive 1#Requested Move 4

Harry Chauvel

Harry Chauvel is listed in the inf box as a notable commander. While not downgrading his achievements, I would suggest they were while he was GOC of the Desert Mounted Corps and not with the ANZAC Mounted Division. Any thoughts. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Jim, with this edit, I made an attempt to present the same information in the infobox but remove the term "notable". Not sure if that helps or not... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes well done, that I think works a lot better. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Article name contested

The all capitals version of the name of this article is contested.

• The name of the article should have the same style as similar articles, for example the Australian Mounted Division and the Imperial Mounted Division. The Anzac Mounted Division acknowledges that the original troopers had fought in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (known as ANZAC) during the Gallipoli Campaign.

No it acknowledges that when the division was formed, in Egypt, it was part of the I ANZAC Corps. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, do I have to repeat Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (known as ANZAC). --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Anzac Mounted Division is recognisable - the literature regarding the Sinai and Palestine campaign refers to the 'Anzac Mounted Division'. Only the Australian War Memorial web site uses the all capitals version, while the Australian Government protection of the word ANZAC here refers to both versions.

Wrong again see examples in archives and the section below.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes it is. See the Australian Government link.

• It is naturally and concisely the name of the mounted division as it briefly identifies the unit rather than the potentially confusing and long, official name of the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, and its abbreviation, the A. & N. Z. Mounted Division, which appears at the top of each page of the divisions War Diary which can be accessed here or the A and NZ Mounted Division.

How can a correct name be confusing, but if your confused, you should have realised the error by now.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

When you can't argue about the subject you always attack the editor. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• The Anzac Mounted Division precisely and unambiguously identifies the mounted division whereas the all capitals version is likely to be misunderstood as to do with the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps which was disbanded the same year the Anzac Mounted Division was formed.

So does ANZAC and the corps was renamed I ANZAC Corps which was what the division was part of see above. Only an idiot would confuse reading ANZAC Mounted Division with ANZAC Corps.Jim Sweeney (talk)

When you can't argue about the subject you always attack the editor. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Anzac Mounted Division is consistently used in all articles describing the battles and campaign the division was involved in during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign.

Only because you have gone through every article changing the name to your preferred version. Even in articles where you had no other input.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No. There was no need to change the name of the division. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact it has been Jim Sweeney who edited the 3rd Light Horse Brigade here the Australian Light Horse here the 2nd Light Horse Brigade here , the 1st Light Horse Brigade here , Desert Mounted Corps here and Chaytor's Force here calling them minor copyedits but changing the name of the Anzac Mounted division all on 22 October. That series of edits is disruptive editing and I have reverted them, only to have Jim Sweeney reinstate them. --Rskp (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• The all capitals version of the name of the mounted division makes it unique in the Misplaced Pages articles describing the campaigns the division took part in. Further it has led to other confusing names for the mounted division such as the "ANZAC division" and "ANZ MTD DIV" which have been mentioned in this article a number of times.

See above re confused. As the other divisions did not use acronym that is understandable.

• Already Anzac Mounted Division is a redirect and indeed there was a consensus for the first move request to this version, while the WP:Australia consensus was to do with the military not the mounted division. The Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history discussions regarding the name of the mounted division can be found here and here --Rskp (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This has all been addressed in four requested moves and a move review by Admins. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No, these issues have not been addressed, just swept under the carpet. The all capitals version of Anzac Mounted Division goes against Misplaced Pages:Article titles policy. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

ANZAC over Anzac

For the benefit of the editor who refuses to drop they stick. For every book that uses ANZAC there is one that uses Anzac. So we need to examine other higher quality sources.

So if we look to the nation that provides the most soldiers the Australian Army. They use ANZAC Mounted Division here - In March 1916, the ANZAC Mounted Division was formed...

• Then there are museums with higher standards than authors.

The National Army Museum uses ANZAC Mounted Division The presentation of medals to troops of ANZAC Mounted Division by General Sir Edmund Allenby, 1918

The Imperial War Museum uses ANZAC Mounted Division, at 10am on 16 November. A view of the ANZAC Mounted Division bivouacs, and a panorama of Jaffa filmed from the sea. Major General H.G. Chauvel GOC, ANZAC Mounted Division, with his staff near Serapeum Egypt. He was appointed 16th March 1916.

The Australian War Memorial uses ANZAC Mounted Division

• The Alexander Turnbull Library part of the National Library of New Zealand Charge of the ANZAC Mounted Division, Palestine, by Charles Guy Powles. 1917 Note that last was is by Powles who fought with the division.

• The division itself in its own war diary Appendix E1/17 The force consisted of the following units ANZAC Mtd Division...
• Here page 19. dated 4/5/16 and page 22 ANZAC Mounted Division in a signal to the 52nd Division.

• By the 4th Cavalry Division in a signal ANZAC Mounted Division page 13.

Also as the article explains the ANZAC Mounted Division was not the only military unit that used the acronym during the war. Other users were the I ANZAC Corps in Egypt and later on the Western Front, II ANZAC Corps on the Western Front and the 1st (ANZAC) Wireless Signal Squadron, which served in the Mesopotamia Campaign. Also part of the EEF was the 4th (ANZAC) Battalion, Imperial Camel Corps Brigade. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to resolve situation

G'day all, can we please try to get some consensus? My own personal view is that "Anzac" is the correct presentation here, but to be honest I don't think my personal opinion matters and I'm more than happy to leave it as "ANZAC" because it is just that, my own personal opinion. At the end of the day, this issue has been discussed and disputed by many people, including a number of published academics who also have differences of opinion on this (there have been scholarly works in journals written on this very topic). So, my suggestion is to accept that we, as Wikipedians, cannot resolve this here and move on so that we can focus on improving other aspects of the article. In saying that, though, so that everyone can be happy with the article, I think it is important that all views be reflected. If the majority of sources used by the main editor when they wrote the article use "ANZAC Mounted Division" then the article should probably use that, particularly as it seems that past attempts to move the article from that name have not gained consensus (I note several above appear to have been closed that way, although I didn't participate so perhaps I've misinterpreted their results); nevertheless, I also think it would be best if a footnote was added to the article, or even something in the body of the text clarifying that sources don't agree on how to handle this. It wouldn't be hard to do it in a way that doesn't interupt the flow of the article and/or confuse the reader. For instance it could either be presented in a footnote like this: "Sources are divided about whether to capitalise "ANZAC" in the division's name, but this article employs "ANZAC Mounted Division" because the majority of sources used in writing it employ this style." Or, a short sentence could be added to the ANZAC section along similar lines, citing the sources that vary in the way they present the information. Additionally, the lead could be tweaked to acknowledge the situation, by saying something like this: "The ANZAC Mounted Division (officially the "Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division" but also abbreviated in some sources as "Anzac Mounted Division", or "A and NZ Mounted Division") was a mounted..." Thoughts on this approach? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a great deal more than your personal opinion AustralianRupert, as I have pointed out in the subsection 'Article name contested,' above which places Anzac Mounted Division as the correct Misplaced Pages article name, according to the Misplaced Pages guidelines for naming articles. As explained in 'Article name contested' above 'Anzac Mounted Division' fits Misplaced Pages style; it is the natural, concise, precise, unambiguous name, which is consistently used. The all capitals version, however, is unique in the Misplaced Pages articles which describe the campaigns the division took part in. There is simply no other all capitals word in those article. Jim Sweeney's not very sporting response to this post was to cover it up here claiming (‪Article name contested: see move review and requested move which were closed earlier this month‬), while failing to mention he had collapsed most of the subsection. The use of 'ANZAC/Anzac' demonstrates that the sources do not agree and also reflects the Australian Government's view. Sources from the move applications could substantiate these two useages. AustralianRupert, it is the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, that is its official name, so the all capitals version along with the Anzac Mounted Division should come afterwards, as they are abbreviations and deviate from the official name.

Regarding consensus. The first consensus was reached during the first move request. This was ignored when the all capital versions was misunderstood to be the official name of the division. This decision also ignored the two MILHIST discussions here and here . The second so called consensus was based on two votes for the deeply flawed first decision against.

The lack of clarity has resulted in such variations as "ANZAC division" and "ANZ MTD DIV." Anzac Mounted Division would clearly reflect the heritage of the original troopers who had fought in the original ANZAC without all the confusion. --Rskp (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Its not a lack of clarify but to ease the flow of reading/writing, something you should take note of. But that does not account for you other additions against WP:COMMON NAME, adding EEF to the inf box when the division never served as Army Troops. Also the large list of battles to the engagements section. Never mind the ridiculous ANZAC/Anzac. All of which have notes asking not to be changed. I would suggest any change to the above is discussed on talk. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Following ARs suggestion added some sources use the lower case Anzac etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source, Jim; your solution seems a fair compromise, in my opinion. Regarding some of the other issues, is there a compromise solution that can be reached for those also? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the inf box changing Harry Chauvel to Henry is against MOS per WP:COMMONNAME, that FA Class article is also called Harry Chauvel. This is something which has been pointed out by several editors over several articles. I note that RoslynSKP has made no attempt to change that article name etc. So that is just being disruptive.

Adding the EEF to the part of section. The division never served under EEF command as Army Troops. If it did can a reference be provided.

Adding the long list of battles to what is the engagements section not battle is just wrong and effects the presentation of the article. However I will concede this is a consensus can be reached.

The repeated changes to the lede adds wrong details, minor points that have no bearing on the article (change in name of Desert Column to Desert Mounted Corps) and do not conform to the sources used. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added a couple more sources for the WP:COMMONNAME and simplified the intro so that its clear what the correct name is and which are the abbreviations. See Misplaced Pages policy on naming articles for guidance. Jim will need to add some sources, if he can find them. Henry is Chauvel's real name, Harry is his nick name. The article should be called Henry G. Chauvel out of respect for the man, but all my time has been taken up with continuing to get articles to GA and this running sore. --Rskp (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Respect for the man has nothing to do with it. It was what he was called during his lifetime. Suggest you concentrate your efforts of getting that article name changed before trying to change Misplaced Pages policy. Then you can move onto others Prince Harry, Bill Clinton spring to mind. Your stance is very narrow, I can then presume you were being disrespectful to me when calling me Jim? And what about the disrespect to all the New Zealanders, is the county not important enough to be identified by upper case ANZAC. Its also interesting to note one of the books your using to support your position is titled Chauvel of the Light Horse A Biography of General Sir Harry Chauvel so your not even following your own sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - citations cut

"The Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division,<refFalls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 156/ref> abbreviated to the A and NZ Mounted Division,<refFalls 1930 Vol. 1 p. 169/ref> and by some sources to the ANZAC Mounted Division, and by others to the Anzac Mounted Division,<refBou, p.159/ref><refHill 1978 p. 96/ref><refPowles 1922 p. 22/ref><refWavell 1968 p. 90/ref> ..."

This series of sources have been cut in an disruptive editing attack on the article beginning here --Rskp (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Unlike your attempts its not disruptive. There is no need for more that one cite per point. Unless of course the information is suspect, and your adding more to make it look better. See Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill was there really any need to add four cites for Anzac in lower case. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire/Turkey

I don't have a personal preference either way, but given that there is a discrepancy in the way the sources handle this point, perhaps a footnote might be appropriate. For instance, something like this might work (obviously, please feel free to use alternate wording if you disagree): {{#tag:ref|At the time of the First World War, the modern Turkish state did not exist, and instead it was part of the Ottoman Empire. While the terms have distinct historical meanings, within many English-language sources the term "Turkey" and "Ottoman Empire" are used synonymously, although many academic sources differ in there approaches.{{sfn|Fewster|Basarin|Basarin|2003|pp=xi–xii}} The sources used in this article predominately use the term "Turkey".|group=nb}}

The reference comes from here: Fewster, Kevin; Basarin, Vecihi; Basarin, Hatice Hurmuz (2003) . Gallipoli: The Turkish Story. Crows Nest, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-74114-045-5. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion and done.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Jim. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a workable solution and I support this too. (I've seen this handled in a similar way in Travers work on the Gallipoli Campaign if memory serves me correctly). Anotherclown (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• The lock step trio are at it again. It is POV to refer to the Ottoman Empire as Turkey in articles to do with the First World War. Turkey did not come into existence until after the war was well and truly over. --Rskp (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Lede section

The repeated attempts to change the lede section by adding minor points and those which have no bearing on the article are disruptive if not yet vandalism. Can any changes be de discussed on this page first. For example Gallipoli has no bearing on the formation of the division and as such should not be in the lede. Also the changing of Turkish to Ottoman when all sources use Turkish and there is a note added to clarify that point. The Transjordan did not come into existence until after the war in the 1920s. The formation of the Imperial Mounted Division and note from someone saying they were unhappy is way off focus and does not belong in the lede. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - I think discussion before editing is going to be the only way fwd here (and in a number of other associated articles). This has got well past the point of being able to make bold edits. Anotherclown (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

On that note I have changed the wording from second battle of Gaza which was a cause of conflict to after April 1917. I was being bold but don't believe there would be any problem as its not controversial. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jim - I've no issues with the edit but think it best we give Roslyn the chance to cmt. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So there has been no attempt to discuss the lede and the inaccurate statements as documented above replaced. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Illegal use of rollback

An illegal use of rollback occurred here . This rollback did not revert vandalism, of the Anzac Mounted Division article. The edits rollbacked were not accidental, they were properly cited and clearly set out the various names of the division, so cannot be considered to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia. The editor who made the rollbacked edits was not a banned user. --Rskp (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

See above section. The reasons for the revert have already been explained more than once. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't have let it be marked as a minor edit, though and should have used a more descriptive edit summary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Since when is properly cited and clearly set out information about the various names of the division, vandalism? This information along with the additional information about ANZAC and the transfer of the brigade to the IMD cannot be considered to be unhelpful in any way to the encyclopedia. It is certainly not vandalism. --Rskp (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The rollback issue has been addressed, but if you guys keep edit warring I'll have to protect the page. m.o.p 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Citations for all the names of the division

All the various names of the division have been given citations to explain why there are so many and who used them. Cutting some of these citations makes the issues more difficult to understand. --Rskp (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You are breaching the 3RR by this edit can you self revert as WP:CITEVAR refers as explained in the edit summary. Also there has never been any dispute that the division was called the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division so there is no need to cite that as has already been explained. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Citations are not just added for information which is in dispute. They are required for all information added to Misplaced Pages. --Rskp (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

At no time has the style of citations in this article been changed (which is what WP:CITEVAR is about) by me. --Rskp (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In connection to WPCITEVAR the article uses a style which you keep breaching as the edit history clearly shows. Secondly see Misplaced Pages:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue ....many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Misplaced Pages's information. and ...Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• The particular quote which is continually being cut from the article is a direct link to the contents page of the Australian official history where the divisional name is listed as one of the chapter headings. "Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918; Volume VII – The Australian Imperial Force in Sinai and Palestine, 1914–1918 (10th edition, 1941) Chapter 5, pp. 14, 57, 68, 73 and 10 other pages". Australian War Memorial. Retrieved 29 October 2013. This quotation does not change the style of quotations as the citations immediately before it is also a cite web "WWI, Sinai, Palestine and Syria". Australian Army. Retrieved 28 October 2013. --Rskp (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again you are breaching the 3RR starting with this edit can you self revert. Re the comment above this the edit is not a "quote" but a reference to the book and should be Gullet, p.14 which is the style used by this article and not a web link to an external website. Do I need to repeat Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill one page number is enough if the source is reliable. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The citation links to a contents page on the AWM website not to a particular page in the Australian official history. There is no citation overkill here, only recognition of the controversy over the numerous different names for the division. --Rskp (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No you know that the web page is for the book Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918 Volume VII – The Australian Imperial Force in Sinai and Palestine, 1914–1918 (10th edition, 1941). And as such as you referencing page numbers and as this article already uses that book which your well aware of the correct way to ref is as per WP:CITEVAR. Maybe if you stopped your disruptive editing across Misplaced Pages, see your edit history for details, this article could progress. Jim Sweeney (talk)

• No I am not referencing page numbers, you should check before you cut. The citation references the content page on the AWM web site, which lists Anzac Mounted Division as one of the chapter headings. --Rskp (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Powles book part of NZ official history

See where the publication is noted as being part of "New Zealand in the First World War 1914-1918," and here where Powles book is listed. --Rskp (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No where on those links does it say its an New Zealand official history.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. --Rskp (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No Jim Sweeney you are wrong. Check out Trove here . --Rskp (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a link to another web site, where does Powles claim he' writing an official history.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
• Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War I articles
• World War I task force articles
• Start-Class New Zealand articles
• Low-importance New Zealand articles
• WikiProject New Zealand articles
• Start-Class Australia articles
• Mid-importance Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Unassessed Egypt articles
• Unknown-importance Egypt articles
• WikiProject Egypt articles