Talk:Dunsterforce

Expansion

Added more detail, most from Nicholson and cut 'n' pasted some background, added pics. Needs the AOH and more from Moberly.Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Stanley Savige has some detail about the protection of Assyrian refugees by elements of Dunsterforce. Might be worth a mention? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes but I've run out of steam.Keith-264 (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh and I don't mention medals, I only cite them where other people do. Is it any better now?Keith-264 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been adding material in the sandbox courtesy of Bean but will need to wait until OH Meso IV arrives (£5 plus postage the hardback!) Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I remember vaguely noticing the British Empire entry in the infobox and doing nothing about it. I'm not sure about the second notable commander now, I didn't notice his name in the sources so I'll revisit once OH Meso IV arrives. Keith-264 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, Ranald MacDonell was not a commander of Dunsterforce. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I managed to forget Erickson (!) but have added details of Ottoman moves from him. It's nice to have a source a mere 14 years old to consult.;O) Keith-264 (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Name of Iran/Persia

There is no need to put this discussion in the main article, as it does not relate to the subject of the article at all. The article is about a particular military expedition. The country concerned was called Persia at that time. Today it is called Iran. A long explanation about the name should not appear in the body of the article, as it is distracting and not directly relevant. It should appear in a footnote, if at all.

If there is a consensus among modern historians about which term should be used when discussing historical events, then that should be used. Otherwise 'Persia' would seem to make more sense up to the time the name was changed.

If Keith-264 feels that a discussion is necessary in the body of text rather than a footnote, then I suggest that he explains why, and justifies his reasoning. Green Wyvern (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

That's just your opinion man. The name of the place surely matters in an encyclopaedia and since there can be confusion and ignorance over it, the lead is the place to mention it. Thanks for asking. Keith-264 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The name of the place matters, but it should be discussed in the right place, that is, in the entry for Name of Iran, where it is discussed in detail. This is not just my opinion, it is Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenWyvern1 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your edit (by mistake because I changed my mind half-way through a rollback but it was too late.) because consensus had not been established. The disputed passage is not a discussion it is a description. I am happy to incorporate the wikilink but it needs a gloss. Perhaps Name of Iran and a sentence? The article is helpful but lacks citations so we have to be careful not to use it as a source. OK?Keith-264 (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

How about adding (cf. Name of Iran) at the beginning, or the first use of Iran? 74.10.226.170 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, wish I'd read this page before editing again. ;o) 'Tis done. Keith-264 (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Yay, everybody happy, everybody dance!74.10.226.170 (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dunsterforce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160326053306/https://archive.org/details/timeshistoryofwa20londuoft to https://ia700408.us.archive.org/8/items/timeshistoryofwa20londuoft/timeshistoryofwa20londuoft.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lisasmedman.topcities.com/dunsterforce%20long.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Casualties?

The section headed "casualties" is truly bizarre. Just one Canadian officer worthy of mention? - Surely an insult to all the others who died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.221.115 (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's cited; if you can adduce other casualties with evidence get to it. Keith-264 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ofensiva turca de 1918 en el Caucaso.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Dayshade: Greetings I reverted you edit because it wasn't in BritEng and because of the inaccuracies it contained. Not all of the Allies were members of Entente countries and not all Entente countries were represented there, Russia had imploded. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Hmm, I'd kinda thought it was better style to use Entente instead of Allied these days but maybe I'm wrong. Do you think Gallipoli campaign should say Allied instead of Entente since it includes Commonwealth countries? Or is there a good guideline for when to use Allied instead of Entente? Also do you consider the Oxford comma BrE? Dayshade (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I guess I thought Oxford comma was more neutral in BrE but seems it's preferred to not be used by many. Anyway the new revision should address your concerns but definitely curious about Entente (which I think can be acceptably extended to later joiners of the alliance) vs Allied guidelines. I prefer the former since it feels less biased against the Central Powers and prevents confusion with the WW2 Allies personally, but idk. Dayshade (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon, I don't like Oxford commas, I prefer to leave conjunctions un-punctuated. I question your edit on quite a few grounds but mainly that you wrote it in AmEng. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Was there something else wrong with the latest revision I made that you've reverted? I don't think it used AmE. I only edited without your approval because I thought it addressed all of your criticisms. Dayshade (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Your changes weren't improvements and some of them showed a lack of knowledge of what the reliable sources contained. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same revision ()? It seems you are referring to my original revision. Dayshade (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

All of them. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

What's American about it, why is it not an improvement, and how does it show any lack of knowledge of what the reliable sources contained when it changes no factual information (other than adding the Russian Revolution bit, which I think is good context, and also Tsarist army redirects to the link I used)? Dayshade (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

For example, "...five officers and fifteen NCOs of Dunsterforce, set out towards..." should definitely have no comma before "set out", right? So isn't that an improvement to remove that? Or is this a situation I'm unaware of where BrE calls for a comma? Dayshade (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

'in World War I, established in December 1917 and named after its commander, Major-General Lionel Dunsterville. The force consisted of no more than'. it's the First World War in English, changing 'comprised fewer' to 'no more than' is a distinction without a difference. Keith-264 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, can do "First World War" instead. Are you dead set on the wording with "comprised fewer than", or are you at all open to any kind of rephrase? It reads awkwardly in the original wording to me, so I'd strongly prefer an alternate. Regardless, are the other changes okay? Dayshade (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. 'officers and NCOs' is important because they were the 'personnel' wanted. I'll work my way through the disputed edits but I'm having my tea now, so it will be a while. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

For "comprised fewer than", you really do not want to change it then? What if we changed it so it had a lower bound, e.g. "between 300 and 350" (not sure what the lower bound is, but I'm sure there's one)? For officers and NCOs, I wanted to change that to personnel since by default a military force would include both. It kind of feels like saying "300 bosses and employees of the company" to me, and with the change in the next paragraph I keep the link to NCO. Dayshade (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

No, the recruitment was for officers and NCOs; altering the 350 to a range would be OR and not consistent with the source. Keith-264 (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

You can see Moberly here and Bean here. Keith-264 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Nicholson here Keith-264 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I actually was not able to find the upper bound in any of the three sources. No search results for 350 referring to number of men in the Dunsterforce (as opposed to numbers of rifles, miles, etc) came up in those sources, but maybe the search missed it or I'm blind. And could you respond to the rest of my last reply besides the range bit? Dayshade (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Tomorrow. Keith-264 (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)