Talk:Charge at Irbid

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / British / European / German / Indian / Middle East / Ottoman / South Asia / 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 articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force British military history task force European military history task force German military history task force Indian military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Ottoman military history task force South Asian military history task force World War I task force

In the First World War there were two regiments called the Central India Horse.

• The
  38th King George's Own Central India Horse which was part of the 4th Cavalry Division see here for one of their casualties during the charge [1]
• The other regiment was the
  39th King George's Own Central India Horse which remained in India during the war, see here for one of their casualties in 1918 [2]
  .
• In 1921 both regiments amalgamated as the
  The Central India Horse (21st King George V's Own Horse)
  .
• In 1947 the 21st (Central India) Horse became a tank regiment in the Indian Army. [3]
• So the use of the name Central India Horse is not appropriate as the name can mean one of four regiments. The best way forward is to use 38th King George's Own Central India Horse on first use then Central India Horse after as the correct regiment has then already been identified. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its appropriate because its the name used by the sources quoted. How could anyone think the Central India Horse in India is the Central India Horse referred to in this article? --Rskp (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By linking and using the correct name as provided by the source used no one can. But by only using the nickname leads to confusion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a "nickname" - its the name used by the sources cited which describe the charge at Irbid. --Rskp (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but as you can see from above there were two regiments with the same nickname during the First World War. Not all the sources use the nickname some use the regiments full title and have yourself used sources that use the correct full name for the regiment involved in other articles. Also Falls in his order of battle page 667 uses 38th Central India Horse, and Preston use 38th Central India Horse in his on page 335. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the text where the action is described they use

Central India Horse. This link will find the 38th Central India Horse, you are loading up citations to orders of battle for no good reason. --Rskp (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

So adding citations from the sources used in this article, that use a regiments correct name is loading up citations to orders of battle for no good reason. The link used goes to a different named regiment that was not formed until four years after this engagement. I think this is another case of article ownership, no one else being allowed to change what you have written.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all see Battle of Sharon XXI and XX Corps reorganisation for an excellent example where information, to the point which broadens all readers understanding of the reorganisation has been added by another editor. But in this instance the editor nit picks without the quality of the article being improved in any way. --Rskp (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The link
  Central India Horse both result in the SAME Wikipedia article. --Rskp (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It still links to the wrong name, with the added note its better but would be better still to use the correct name in the first place as Falls and Preston do in their OOB, not the abbreviated nickname that can leads to confusion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]