Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

Paring down the Lead section

I removed a significant amount of detail from the lead section. There was good material there, but its presence in the Lead section was not appropriate. Perhaps some further highlights from the history of the various divisions designated the 1st Armoured can be added to the Lead to give it the right amount of summarizing and tantalizing detail. Nonsequitrist (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This shorter version fails to describe the critical role the division played in battles such as the First Battle of El Alamein and the Second Battle of El Alamein which were turning points in the Second World War. I would like to see that material restored. Also, in my opinion, the paring down made the lead far too short. Dormskirk (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding information about pivotal exploits of the division is certainly appropriate, but that's not what you did. You simply reverted my edit, restoring the blow-by-blow of the division's history. This is not appropriate for a Lead section. "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." There is no set length for a Lead section. If you want this article to progress to through GAN and so on, the current form of the Lead will not do. The style of the text is also somewhat impoverished; too often the sentences are short and disconnected. It needs better flow. I will not contribute further, as it is clear to me you have no interest in collaborating. Nonsequitrist (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Much of this article was spun out of the article on 1st (United Kingdom) Division, an article which I overhauled in July 2011. However, much more recently, another editor, EnigmaMcmxc, undertook some very fine work to make this a stand-alone article and, in my opinion, their efforts have been of the highest quality. So you are quite wrong to suggest that I do not collaborate, but more importantly, I really don't understand your comment that the "style of the text is also somewhat impoverished". If you want to make major changes to the lead section I suggest you propose them here, but preferably without proposing the removal of the material on the key battles. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Any information in the lead section must also be present in the article itself. Thus any information removed from the lead section does not represent information removed from the article unless the article is in gross violation of WIkipedia standards. The lead section as it is now is at odds with Wikipedia standards because it contains a level of detail not appropriate for that section. Note that EnigmaMcmxc has requested help copyediting the article, so they clearly feel that they themselves would like help bringing it up to Good Article Standards. You are unlikely to find copyeditors willing to help if all changes need to be submitted first to this Talk page lest they be reverted by you entirely. Your disinterest in engaging with the initial copyediting I did, instead reverting it utterly, indicates that you are not interested in getting collaborative assistance as EnigmaMcmxc is. With regard to the style deficiencies currently in the text, I already was explicit ("Too often the sentences are short and disconnected. It needs better flow."). I'll offer now an illustration of the problem. Consider the first sentence of Australian rules football, a Good Article currently featured on the front page of English Wikipedia: "Australian football, also called Australian rules football or Aussie rules, or more simply football or footy, is a contact sport played between two teams of 18 players on an oval field, often a modified cricket ground." Now consider the first sentence of this article: "The 1st Armoured Division was an armoured division of the British Army." Nonsequitrist (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to help here and you are now giving specific examples of how the article could be improved which is very helpful. However, criticising my efforts as not collaborative and EnigmaMcmxc's efforts as "impoverished" did not get us off to a good start. It is probably best if you now discuss with EnigmaMcmxc. Dormskirk (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I cannot agree that my talking to EnigmaMcmxc would serve any purpose now. As I said, I will not be contributing to the copyediting of this article any further. More to the point, you are now the chief obstacle in this article's improvement sought by EnigmaMcmxc. When I made initial copyediting changes and engaged here on this Talk page, your response was not to engage with those changes, but to revert them. You then laid down boundaries concerning not just what could be changed in the article, but what should even be discussed here, while suggesting that all changes be approved (presumably by you) here. Your ownership-attitude over the article is the obstacle to its improvement, not an untaken-up conversation with EnigmaMcmxc. Nonsequitrist (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I have explained that your recent explanation was very helpful and have restored your changes in the interests of progress. Dormskirk (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a very admirable step. The lead section as it is currently can be improved with the specific suggestions you made here. You have command of the material now; if you are inclined to do so, adding text to the lead section about the division's pivotal role in specific battles would move us closer to GA standards. I will undertake a fuller understanding of the article's text as it is now before making any further changes myself. Nonsequitrist (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for that. I will leave the next step to EnigmaMcmxc, who may or may not want to retore material on battles, as it is EnigmaMcmxc who has done all the hard work recently. Dormskirk (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Baffle☿gab has taken on copyediting this article as as a project, in response to EnigmaMcmx's submission of this article with a request for help to the Guild of Copy Editors, as can be seen here. I'm going to curtail my own work so as not to step on Baffle☿gab's toes. Nonsequitrist (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Just popping in to state I should be able to review the above as well as the changes that were proposed and are currently being made hopefully this weekend.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I have just finished reading through the above and the various changes that were made. First, I really appreciate both copy edits that were made. I also agree with Dormskirk that some details were missing from the lede. Based off prior GA/A-Class/FA reviews, I think that additional detail will be requested down the line. With that said, I have made some changes to the lede with all this feedback in mind. Hopefully, we have found a happy compromise prior to the review process?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Uh, I don’t understand

I served with the 1st Armd Div in Germany in 1995-1996. The structure of this article and the other one and 4th Armd Div need work. They don’t make sense to me. Either separate the armd divs or don’t. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Do you have specifics on what does not make sense, so we can work to clear things up? For example, we know that the Mobile Division was formed in 1937, was renamed the 1st Armoured Division, and Joslen verifies that it was disbanded in 1945 (the 6th Arm rename is mostly just tacked on the end as it does not seem to fit anywhere else).

Based off what I have read over the last year, the division you are referencing is the one that has since been renamed the 1st (United Kingdom) Division? Their website indicates that it (called 1st Armoured Division between 1976 and 2014?) was the continuation of the 1st Division/1st Infantry Division. The divisional history, for the one you are referencing, appears to be:

• Wilson, Peter Liddell (1993). The First Division 1809-1993: A Short Illustrated History (2nd ed.). Herford, Germany: 1st Division. OCLC 29635235.

Look forward to feedback to make sure we can have all our ducks in a row.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Images appropriately licensed
• Their captions generally need to lose their full stops.
• It was eventually deployed for combat, in May 1940, when it was dispatched to France and fought in the Battle of France before being withdrawn to the UK in June during Operation Aerial. awkward, maybe split it up?
  • Better, but lots of "then"s. I don't think that so many are necessary because the dates keep things in chronological order for the reader. And I'd suggest that Then, in May 1940, the division was deployed to France and then fought in the Battle of France. is actually misleading as it suggests that the division was sent to France before the invasion, rather than in response to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• until 1944. In May 1944 redundant year
• four infantry and one mobile division Should be plural. Suggest reversing the order to allow for that
• operating in the north-east of the country Shouldn't this be the north-west?
• Down to initial desert fighting, more later--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your review and comments, so far. I have attempted to address them all. Regarding the north-east, Georges was in command of the French 1st Army Group that initially was concentrated on the Franco-Belgian border. The subsequent fighting took place in the Somme department, before the retreat west to get back to the UK. NE seems appropriate, although I have seen most sources describe this area just as northern France.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• According to Michael Carver, a general, historian who fought in the battle ?

  Looks like some words were missing here! He is a former general and a historian. But, I just removed that so it reads "Carver, who fought in the battle," which is more concise and clear.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Better, but I'd suggest that you specify his qualifications as some random bloke who fought in the battle doesn't necessarily have a lot of credibility--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Does my most recent tweak work better? If not, any suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Good enough. I'd suggest linking the rank, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Lumsden held animosity towards Messervy this is kinda passive. Howabout a simple "resented" or even "felt"?

  Tweaked to your initial suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Lumsden quarrelled with his superior Lieutenant-General Willoughby Norrie to have his division, which now contained the majority of the army’s armoured forces, to be relieved after weeks of continuous action. awkward

  I have made a tweak to this, does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Defence analyst Charles Heyman, has stated excess comma, although I think that the man obviously hasn't consulted Joslen! I'm not really sure than this is necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hopefully, I I'll be able to address the remainder of your comments later today. Regarding Heyman, I was unsure if this should be added or not since he is pretty much the only one who makes such a claim. I think I initially added it as a note before working it into the text. It was partially a bit of a leftover from the initial update to the 1st Division and the 1st Armoured Division articles, as there was a lot of confusion on when both were founded (which has now been ironed out). With that said, I can remove this (just wanted to provide a little context first).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have moved this to the talkpageEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your further comments, I have attempted to enact them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Everything else looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Fringe position

Moved from the article, per GA review:

Defence analyst Charles Heyman, has stated the 1st Armoured Division was formed in 1940 and was not disbanded in 1945. He has attributed the fighting at El Alamein to the same formation that fought in the Gulf War.

• Heyman, Charles (1997). The British Army: A Pocket Guide. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. ISBN 978-0-85052-539-7.
• Heyman, Charles (2007). The British Army: A Pocket Guide 2008–2009. Barnsley: Pen & Sword. ISBN 978-1-78340-811-5.
• Heyman, Charles (2012). The British Army Guide: 2012–2013. Havertown: Pen & Sword. ISBN 978-1-78303-280-8.

EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

1st Armoured Division rhinoceros insignia

• ... that the 1st Armoured Division of the British Army chose a white rhinoceros on a black oval as their insignia (pictured)? Source: The design is a white standing rhinoceros on a black oval
  • ALT1: ... that in 1944 the 1st Armoured Division (insignia pictured) of the British Army suffered 1,111 casualties in just one month of fighting in Italy? Source: Jackson, William; et al. (2004) [1988]. Victory in the Mediterranean, Part II – June to October 1944. History of the Second World War United Kingdom Military Series. Vol. VI. London: Naval & Military Press. ISBN 978-1-84574-071-9.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Teleram
  • Comment: AGF on ALT1 source as it is offline in the article.

Improved to Good Article status by EnigmaMcmxc (talk) and Baffle gab1978 (talk). Nominated by Bruxton (talk) at 19:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Bruxton: Good article. Honestly, the first hook is not interesting to me but alt1 is good enough for me to approve in good faith. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The figure should be 1,111. The source gives a table of casualties, which for the 1st Armoured Division says 90 officers and 1,021 other ranks were killed. I assume the article author misread the former number as 900. I have corrected this in the article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth: I changed the hook, pinging @Onegreatjoke: to take a look about approving. I have no access to the source so I AGF. Bruxton (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be fine now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit war

For information from the 1970s through to 2014 to be added to this article, evidence needs to be provided that this formation (formed 1937 and disbanded in 1945) was reformed in the 1970s and continued this formation's history. As noted above, in the GA review and the appropriate section, Heyman provides a fringe position that is contradicted by a plethora of other secondary sources on the subject (he includes an incorrect formation date for starters and in this editors opinion would appear to conflate two formations with one).

On the flip side, there is a wealth of information to show that the 1st Division became the 1st Infantry Division, reverted to the 1st Division and was then renamed as the 1st Armoured Division in the 1970s and subsequently (after being disbanded and reformed) the 1st (United Kingdom) Division. Several sources highlight the continued history of this formation despite the various name changes. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear EnigmaMcmxc, you clearly believe in two separate formations, and thus that Heyman conflates two formations with one. Obviously. But to justify the removal of material regarding the "1st Armoured Division" from *this* article, as opposed to *including* material about the 1st Armoured Division in the 1st (United Kingdom) Division article, you need to prove to WP:RELIABLESOURCES standards that the formation under that name in 1978-2014 was *totally, qualitatively, dissimilar* from the organism under that name up to 1945 - because this encyclopedia puts the information bearing the same name in the same article!! They *share the same name.* You haven't done so.

Now, you've just infringed 3RR, three reverts within 24 hours. Please do not do so again. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Considering that this article was essentially started in 2022, cites a host of information that describes a formation that was formed in 1937 and disbanded in 1945, and has since passed a GA review (which included the suggestion of removing Heyman as a fringe position) based on that timeframe, the inclusion of additional information outside of that time period has to be sourced (the copy and paste job has sourced information, but none of it provides verification of these being the same two formations). The onus here, is on you, to prove your position that the 1st Armoured Division (70s-2014) is the same as this formation as the one detailed in this article. What evidence is there (Heyman, as noted, does not even get the formation date right for any division we are even discussing)?

There is a whole host of reliable sources that state the 1st Division (formed initially in 1809, disbanded and reformed a whole bunch since then) became known as the 1st Armoured Division in the 70s and that it was subsequently renamed the 1st (United Kingdom) Division in 2014. So, again, you would have to provide reliable sources to suggest otherwise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree. My copy and paste job adds additional material concerning the 1st Armoured Division to existing material about the 1st Armoured Division. Material describing an entity under the same title should be grouped together. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

One could facetiously argue that this article needs to be split into three then: Mobile Division (United Kingdom), 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom), and 1st British Armoured Division. Of course, that would not make sense since they would be three different articles about the same formation. There is also around 350,000 disambiguation pages on the wiki, which suggests just because something has the same name it does not have to be on the same page.

Aside from sharing a name, where is the verification that these two formations (1: formed in 1937 and disbanded in 1945, 2: formed in the 70s) were one and the same? The copy and pasted material from the 1st (United Kingdom) Division article does not support that position (they only support a shared name). For example, Lord and Watson – from the initial pasted sentence – specifies that the 1st Division (formed 1809) was renamed on several occasions, including becoming the 1st Armoured Divisions in the 1970s. The source describes a continued history of the 1st Division (from 1809 through the time of writing), not the history of a separate, reformed, or new formation (especially with a connection with the Second World War-era formation). The final line of the added material also indicates the continued shared history of the 1st Division (formed 1809).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Verification for the two formations is not required *for this article* - as opposed to your butchering of the 1st Infantry Division --> 1st (UK) Division article. I am grouping all material on the 1st Armoured Division in the same article, following the example of this article from its creation in 2004 to 2022, and the articles for the 6th and 11th Armoured Divisions. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Butchering? You mean aligning the articles to match what the sources say? You need to find a position and maintain it. First, you ask to prove a negative. Then you state reliable sources are needed to prove a point. Now, you are stating verification is not needed, if you agree the position it takes as well as maintaining the status quo even if it does not follow what the sources state. You might want to bring in the GA-reviewer, since they passed this article based on its scope. You made a similar argument when the 2nd Division article was improved (a consensus of editors held a position that shared history of a single entity should be in one article, rather than grouping separate entities together by name). There is literally no source that backs up your position* (the army, the division's own published history, the division's own media feed, and a whole bunch of secondary sources), I looked!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have taken a position: all the history of the 1st Armoured Division should be presented in the same article. The existence of Heyman's arguments invalidates your last claim - you *acknowledged* Heyman in your first post, and then deny him immediately above!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

And this is bizarre: "there is a wealth of information to show that the 1st Division became the 1st Infantry Division, reverted to the 1st Division and was then renamed as the 1st Armoured Division in the 1970s" - there were both the 1st Armoured Division and 1st Infantry Division, simultaneously at times. All divisional type titles were dropped from 1960-78, then four *armoured* divisions reformed. None of your sources disprove that the 1st [nothing] Division of 1 July 1960, immediately following the 1st Infantry Division, should be disassociated from the history of that 1st Infantry Division. Among other things, it adopted the insignia of the 1st Infantry Division. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Your position is ignoring that there have been two separate formations called the 1st Armoured Division. The position of articles being separated based on a shared history, rather than being separated based on name, has consensus (the GA review for this article as well as the various reviews of the 2nd Armoured Division and 2nd Infantry Division articles).

I highlighted Heyman as a fringe position. He provides a formation date that is not supported by any other source. He states that the same formation that fought at El Alamein was the one that fought in the Gulf War. The problem with this is 1: the formation that fought at El Alamein was disbanded in 1945 and did not carry on existing as he suggests into the post-war era. 2) The formation that fought in the Gulf War was also active during the Second World War (under a different name) and did not fight at El Alamein. Its name changes and continued history are well supported.

The British Army's website, the 1st Division's media (online and published), the Imperial War Musuem, and all the sources cited in the 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) and 1st (United Kingdom) Division articles describe both formations as separate entities. They all describe the history of the 1st Armoured Division (1978-2014) as being part of the same shared history of the 1st Division (the current 1st (United Kingdom) Division and originally formed in 1809). They do not describe the 1st Armoured Division (1978-2014) as being related to the 1st Armoured Division (1937–1945). So, why would the history of two formations be blended together on one page?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the 1st Armoured Division of the British Army was established in 1937, disbanded in 1945, reestablished in 1978, and disbanded again in 2014. That was the official name of that armoured formation through those periods. You would need to show sources that prove, not just argue, the two separated periods of existence both constituted unique, qualitatively different organisms before you had an argument solid enough to justify removal of details of both periods of existence from this article. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The British Army's website literally outright states what you are asking for (1st Division formed in 1809, was at Dunkirk, - no mention of El Alamein - and fought in the Gulf War).

That bounces the whole issue back to you, you need to provide a source that "that prove[s], not just argue[s]" that when the 1st Division was renamed as the 1st Armoured Division in 1978, that it became a separate entity with a history divorced from its predecessor (1st Division and 1st Infantry Division) and successor (1st UK Division) and why it should be placed in this article about a formation that had the same name and was raised in 1937 and disbanded in 1945.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The British Army's website makes mention of specific events in the history of the 1st - note 1st, not 1st Armoured or 1st Infantry - Division. It does not claim that the two periods of the 1st Armoured Division should be disassociated. The 1st Inf Div was at Dunkirk; 1st Armd was elsewhere - cut off south of the Somme and went out through Cherbourg; while 1st Armd was in the Gulf War. Neither were in both places. The people writing that page have added an incident in the history of 1ID during the Second World War and an incident in the history of 1AD afterwards. Why didn't they mention what was going on with the 1AD on the Somme? Surely that was part of a history of a British Army division? All that page proves is that the people who write the history sections for the British Army website do inconsistent work - hardly surprising, in my experience. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It does not state that they should be associated either. So, what is your source that would suggest that they should?

You state that their website is wrong (wouldn't be the first time I have seen incorrect or misleading information on an official website either), but is it not also just as likely that they are cognizant of the 1st Division's history and accurately portrayed it (thus including the 1st Infantry Division at Dunkirk and later in the Gulf War when named the 1st Armoured Division; which would also explain why they do not reference any 1st Armoured Division activity at the Somme, because it was a different formation.)? You seem to accept that the Mobile Division was formed in 1937, so how does that align with the 1st Division's assertion of being in the Gulf War (as the 1st Armoured Division) and having been formed in 1809? This overarching point is made in several other sources referenced in both articles and on the talk pages.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"..What is your source that would suggest that they should [be associated]?" They *have the same title!!* That means the data for the two periods under the same title has every justification for being on the same page. As I said, that was the case for the 1AD page up until this year, and remains the case for the 6th and 11th Armoured Divisions. You're the one trying to change that. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Then I would think that a third party or a new RFC or something is needed, as it would seem we are going to argue in circles. All changes I have made to these articles have been based on what the sources state and describe, and this article has managed to pass a review based on the scope and sources used. You are arguing for maintaining the prior status quo, even if it was not supported by what sources said and have offered nothing in the way of supporting association by name other than it was previously like that and some other articles may do that too (while stating the sources are wrong if they say anything else).

I would argue that precedent has been established by the community, when it acknowledged that association by name was not appropriate for the 2nd Division/2nd Armoured Division articles during their review processes (both have a very similar issue to this current debate). I would further contend that the prior version of this article (which was literally blank, and its contents folded in with the 1st UK Div article) failed to align with what the sources stated, included unsupported formation dates, and cherrypicked data (for example, the GOC list was sourced to Mackie. Mackie also notes that the 1st Division has a long history and would eventually be renamed as the 1st Armoured Division. He also notes that there was a separate 1st Armoured Division during the Second World War. Yet the article decided that Mackie was only correct for 1960 onwards and merged two of his lists together and cut out information that was not liked).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources say the 1st Armoured Division existed from 1939-45, 1946-7, and 1978-2014. That is incontrovertible. You are arguing a complicated set of lineage links which at no point invalidates that. Nothing you say has invalidated those two-and-a-half periods of existence. Those 2-3 periods depending on the way you split them are the scope of the article under the title it has, as per WP:ARTICLE. You've had (eight?) rejoinder chances to offer unimpeachable evidence that the British Army says that the division's existence from 1978 was not a continuation of its Second World War period. You haven't put forward such evidence because it does not exist. In the absence of such evidence, you cannot stop people associating two periods of existence of the same subject, so WP:DROPTHESTICK. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As I indicated in a separate thread above, I served in the 1st (UK) Armoured Division in Germany in 1994-96. The divisional patch was essentially the same as this one (ie the rhino). Many divisional exercises were named "Exercise Rhino XXXX" in recognition of that. I know that is a minor matter compared to other aspects of lineage, but frankly, I have always found this to be a rather arbitrary separation given the same ordinal, almost identical names, and same type of division, same patch. I am sure a collegial discussion can find a way to provide all the information about the division to the reader in a single article with forks as necessary where the amount of material requires. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Buckshot06, you keep stating in light of evidence, yet you ignore every source that explains exactly the point I have made. You have provided literally zero sources to prove your point.

Peacemaker67, the current 1st (UK) Division still maintains the association of "Team Rhino". The IWM highlights, for example, that until 1983, the 1st Armoured Division maintained the insignia of the 1st Division (a white triangle with a red outline) and that they chose to incorporate the Second World War's 1st Armoured Divisions logo at that point to create a new one that blended both designs.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

What do the sources say?

It would seem easier to just state what the sources say, so what is that? Heres a table:

Division	Source(s)
1st Division	, NATO ARRC website, Imperial War Musuem, , Royal Engineer newsletter, , Mackie's GOC lists
Mobile Division	, , Mackie's GOC lists
Claim that 1st Armoured Division (1937–1945) was reformed in 1978 and has some sort of shared history
Other

References

Test section

Testing addition of reflist. -- GreenC 14:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

References

The edit war - revisited

Okay, so other than the above discussion, this same point has been argued since 2020 and has gone on in the following locations: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom), [[1]], [[2]], Talk:1st (United Kingdom) Division, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom). Hopefully, I have not missed any of these prolonged and repetitive discussions.

For the sake of simplicity, everything that I have to say regarding this article I will refer to as being about the Mobile Division, for everything related to the 1st (United Kingdom) Division article I will refer to as the 1st Division. The basic points:

• Consensus, via several reviews, is that articles should be based on a formation's linage (hence the decisions to remove material about Cold War formations from the Mobile and 2nd Armoured Division articles and putting them in their respective articles on the 1st and 2nd Divisions).
• The sources outline separate linages despite similar names:
  • The British Army in 2001 stated that their 1st Division (at the time called the 1st (UK) Armoured Division) had been in existence since 1809.
  • The NATO Reaction Corps website made the same point
  • So does the Imperial War Museum
  • Lord and Watson, in their history of signal regiments and discussions about the lineage of their associated divisions, outline two separate formations: the Mobile Division with a lineage of 1937 to 1944 (page 26); the 1st Division (pages 23–25) with a lineage spanning from at least the Second Boer War up to the 1990s and including name changes when it became an armoured formation.

So, at this point in time, what source is there to lump all material about any formation with a similar name in this article? Buckshot, you have made repeated assertions that the 1st Armoured Division was reformed (suggesting at a lineage linked with the Mobile Division and one that separates the 1st Division's time as an armoured formation with the rest of its existence), so its time to ante up. All these discussions follow the same path, you make this claim and you do not provide a source to support it. I am not interested in any more wiki lawyering, and I am not going to accept your reaction of the British Army's website as an unreliable source wrote by a corporal (paraphrasing a previous position you argued). What do the sources say and what do you have to assert your position other than they have the same name?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I am saying, yes, that everything under the same name is the same formation, and should be on the same Wikipedia article. Do you have any sources saying the late-1970s formation is an entirely new organism, has no links with the past? I don't think so - I have never seen any.

If you don't have any sources saying that, then there is no justification for removing data about an identically named entity from this article. But every time I try to add the entire history of the 1st Armoured Division in the British Army to this page, you remove it!! Buckshot06 (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So, just to clear this up ... you have no sources to support your position and you are just going to carry on ignoring established consensus and what the sources say? Okay, thank you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is this "consensus" you talk of? I see no discussion whatsoever of the matter on this talkpage or at the GA Review of February (whatever bastardization you may have been inflicting on other articles). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

They are all linked at top. Multiple reviews over several years, with a bunch of editors all stating that anything to do with the post 1945 formations do not belong in this article or on the 2nd Armoured Division article since they are not related to each other. They all made the same point, articles should follow lineage.

You keep making the pathetic insults of stating the articles have been bastardized, yet you have - still - not provided a single source to support your argument. The so-called bastardized articles follow what the sources say, and not what you are claiming. So, ante up, provide a source.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You say, over and over again, "Buckshot06 has no source." But for the central assertion at the core of *this* article - adding the history of the division after the late 1970s - you have no source. Nothing to justify removal of text about an identically named entity. That's why you have no consensus, either. If you want to justify the version that you want to impose at this article, removing the history of the division after 1978, you have to source that!! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So, again, you have no source for your assertions.

The review for this article had uninvolved editors state to remove excessive information about any formation that is not related to the Mobile Division (such as the 6th Armoured Division being renamed the 1st Armoured Division, and the 1st Division being renamed the 1st Armoured Division) hence the very small section at the end. During the review for the 2nd Armoured Division article, the same position was taken: anything to do with the 2nd Division did not belong on the 2nd Armoured Division's article, even if they did share the same name for a while. You have not provided a source to suggest why that consensus should be ignored.

Literal published sources (which you keep ignoring when they are highlighted) support that the lineage and history of the Mobile Division and the 1st Division are separate. So, why should we ignore them and lump everything on this article? The British Army's website, a NATO website, a whole bunch of others all noted that the 1st Division (even when it was renamed as the 1st Armoured Division) was a formation that was formed in 1809. You have not provided a source to explain why we should ignore these sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Basically, your argument seems to boil down to everything at X (disambiguation) should be merged with Twitter article, since they all share the same name despite them all being about different specific subjects. I will most certainly not find a source that states X (The X-Files) has anything to do with X/Twitter, because such a source does not exist. That is what you keep asserting needs to be found. On the flip side, I sure could find a whole bunch of sources that state Twitter is being rebranded as X. In the latter case, I would imagine that an overview article would include a section about it being called Twitter (akin the Meta Platforms article referencing Facebook in an awful lot of places ... or like the 1st Division article being about that formation's lineage and including times when it was not called "1st Division".).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I am surprised - quite surprised - that you are again bringing up the same arguments. The arguments on both sides are reasonably straightforward and I am sure we both understand them. If you think you are going to change my views, I am also surprised. Again, if you wish to impose your views at this article, you will need sources backing your assertions, and some sort of dispensation from the usual rules about entities with the same title. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No. You are making an assertion, and you need to provide a source. What the articles currently state, are what the sources state.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So you have just repeated what you've said at the top of the thread. I can repeat myself too: you don't have a source for the central issue for this article, the asserted break in lineage after the mid-1970s. So what I am doing now is responding to you solely to make it clear that I am ready to continue discussions. If you want this discussion to move forward, you have to say something new. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

To be clear then, for 16 days (or, should I say, over at least a year) you have been asked to provide a source to explain your position and once again all you have is rhetoric. Your response to actual sources that is the basis for the core of multiple articles, you simply ignore.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So you have just repeated yourself. I can repeat myself too: you don't have a source for the central issue for this article, the asserted break in lineage after the mid-1970s. You are refusing to respond to the lack of a source for the central claim you want to make. So what I am doing now is responding to you solely to make it clear that I am ready to continue discussions. "If you want this discussion to move forward, you have to say something new." (2) Buckshot06 (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Only you keep talking about a break in lineage. Lord and Watson, for one single example, highlight that the Mobile Division existed from 1937 to 1945. Lord and Watson, again for a single example, states that the 1st Division existed beyond and during that time period and they also state for a time that the 1st Division was known as the 1st Armoured Division. They do not state that when the 1st Division changed name that it became a new formation with a brand new lineage. That source does not state that when the 1st Division was renamed, that it was the reformation of the Mobile Division. I am arguing there is no break in lineage.

So, once again, what is your source that states the opposite?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The 1st Armoured Division was established in 1939; disbanded 1945; reestablished 1978; disestablished 2014. There's lots of sources supporting each one of those four dates. My problem is that you keep taking the later period of existence out of the article. You don't have a source saying there was any break, qualitative change, between the two periods of existence. But, every time I try and reinsert the second period of existence, you remove it!! Buckshot06 (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

"You don't have a source saying there was any break, qualitative change, between the two periods of existence" - You have yet to name a source that states that these are the same formation, or that they share a lineage.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge your post. I see you have posted at DRN. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)