# Talk:10th Battalion (Australia)

G'day all, is there a reason that Lock isn't even listed as further reading? I know it was published in 1936, but it is one of the "straightest" accounts of the battalion ever published. No puffery, bare facts. Thoughts? Peacemaker67  (send... over) 10:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

G'day, PM, an oversight on my part. I've added it now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you see him as too old for use as a reference? He certainly has lots of detailed information about the battalion's moves etc, that others don't. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 10:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
G'day, no I think it would be okay to use Lock as a ref (I believe it was actually reprinted by the IWM recently). I haven't done so because I haven't been able to get a hold of the work yet. If you have it, or can get it from somewhere, please feel free to add those details in. I think it would be good to expand it a little more before taking it to ACR. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I have a copy of the IWM reprint (gotta love the fact that it hasn't been reprinted in Aust, but the IWM...). I'll find it this weekend and look at areas that it could add some detail. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 01:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
G'day, PM, thanks for adding that information from Lock. I've managed to obtain a copy through the work library (it was in stack apparently in Canberra). My copy is the original first edition, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it very curious that the 2/10th barely rates a mention.  The 2/10th AIF was the true successor to the 10th AIF.  As you note, the WWII battle honours ascribed to the 10th were all (I think) 2/10th actions.  Surely the 2/10 deserves a significant mention and a link to the 2/10th page.  Baska436 (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you got that stuff about the "true successor" from, if you have a reliable source for it, I'd be interested. The "10th" existed well before WWI and it still exists now. There IS a link to the 2nd/10th... This article is not about the 2nd/10th, but it could at least mention that the 2nd/10th was raised to carry on the number of the 10th in the 2nd AIF. Perhaps a "see also" template at the top of the WWII section might be appropriate given the links that were drawn post-war. Regards, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 09:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure where you got the stuff about the 10th existing well before WWI.  The article itself says the 10th was raised in 1914.  Maybe the "Adelaide Rifles" existed before then but not (at least to my knowlege) as the 10th.  Yes I agree that it would be better with additional comments on the raising of the 2/10th etc  Baska436 (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I've just found a reference that says that the Adelaide Rifles were designated th 10th Australian Infantry Regiment in 1901 (Allchin "Purple and Blue") so perhaps it would be good to include that. Baska436 (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe it was 1 July 1903 that the Adelaide Rifles became the 10th Infantry Regiment (Lock, p. 146), and that is certainly well before 1914. If you have a source for the "true successor" bit, feel free to add it. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 12:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the underlying problem is confusion (or not making the distinction clear enough) between 10th AIF and various militia 10th battalions.  So the first line of the lede, and the first line of "History" are clearly specifically 10th AIF.  As you note there was a 10th Btn in 1901 or 1903, but it gets no mention at all.  WWI is entirely 10th AIF (just as an aside, do you know if the milita regiments were disbanded in some way during WWI?  Or did they continue alongside the AIF?).  But the post WWI discussion is almost entirely about militia, to the extent of all but skipping over the 2/10th.  As to the "true successor", I never envisaged those words going into the article, but I believe it is perfectly valid concept in the context of the AIF.  It seems that the members of the 2/10th AIF certainly saw themselves as inheritors of the traditions of the 10th AIF.  Allchin gives at least two examples: P xxii After listing the battle honours of the 10th AIF, he says "Such were the traditions of the 10th Battalion (the Adelaide Rifles)that were handed down to the members of the 2/10th battalion AIF.  The latter were proud of them. They sincerely hoped that they would live up to them.".  And P 394 (After the disbanding of the 2/10th) "... a unit that had well played its part in the war 1939-1945 and added further glory to the traditions of the 10th Battalion (the Adelaide Rifles)."  I'm not sure what should best be done.  Should this be a 10th Btn AIF article, or should it include more on the whole 10th Btn "family" (First and Second AIF and militia).  Whichever, I think it needs to be consistent throughout.  Also by the way there are a couple of things in Allchin that could, I think, well be included in the current article anyway - P xxi "In 1914 every officer and hundreds of other ranks [of the 10th Btn militia] volunteered for service overseas (ie in the AIF)
RegardsBaska436 (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
So far as I am aware, the "Adelaide Rifles" is the oldest unit in this lineage. It was not called "10th" anything, and was a multiple battalion regiment in the same way as a British regiment such as the Green Howards. The 10th Infantry Regiment was created in 1903 (or 1901), and it was also a multiple battalion regiment, but was also the basis for the 10th Battalion AIF being given the number 10. So far as I am aware, the same pattern followed nationally with the regimental/battalion numbers. The 10th Battalion AIF wasn't really known as the Adelaide Rifles, it was known as the Fighting 10th. IMO, there is a good argument for the 10th Battalion AIF and 2nd/10th Battalion 2nd AIF having separate articles, with this article as a summary article with spinoffs for each. There is enough material for that arrangement. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 11:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
G'day gents, Festberg's work on the lineage of the Australian Army is the definitive work in my opinion, although Shaw and Stanley also have good information. Essentially what it boils down to is the fact that lineage in the Australian Army is confusing, even to the organisation itself. I will try to come back later tonight or over the weekend and work on the article some more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on 10th Battalion (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.army.gov.au/AHU/docs/A_Century_of_Service_Stanley.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Just did a light c/e etc, and am wondering about whether it is ready for ACR, however, I don't think Regiments.org is a reliable source. Are there any sources that could be used to replace Mills? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

G'day, PM, most of it -- but not quite all -- can be replaced by Festberg, I think. I will go though it now. Regarding ACR, unfortunately I don't currently have access Lock or Kearney, I'm sorry. Otherwise, happy to help at ACR if I can. (Please note, though, that the second half of this year is really bad for me -- several courses to do for work, a couple of interstate trips etc. -- so I'd probably be relying on you for much of the ACR work, I'm sorry). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I have Lock, and I am pretty sure I can get Kearney (I know Dogs, he must have a spare if I can't get it through the library). Regardless, I'm happy to do the heavy lifting during ACR, you have done by far the lion's share with this article thus far. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've adjusted the article now to remove Mills. These are my changes: [1]. I also added some archiveurls. Please let me know if anything else needs adjusting. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much, AR. I'll pin down a copy of Kearney and see what else might be added from Lock before nominating. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, I have managed to secure a copy of Kearney, Lock and Limb's works now -- at least for a month or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Copy, AustralianRupert. Managed to get a copy of Dogs' book today, so I have Lock and Kearney as well. I'll nominate it now. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)