This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
If you don't believe me, will you believe one of the most recognized authorities on the second world war - Gerhard Weinberg?
Nevertheless, there is far too much denigration of the performance of Italy’s forces during the conflict. It was the Germans who insisted on the substitution of their enigma encoding machines that the British were reading for Italian ciphers that had not been cracked.14 As James Sadkovich has shown, the performance of the Italian navy and army was not as poor as much of the contemporary joking and subsequent writings suggest. Missing from most of the literature is the participation of Italian army units in the fighting on the Eastern Front, and the extent to which the heavy casualties those units suffered contributed to the rapid evaporation of support for the fascist system among the Italian public. (Some Myths of World War II, Journal of Military History, 2011)
This means that much of the literature that has needlessly and maliciously maligned the Italian war effort can be safely discarded and thrown in the trash. What we need is a new perspective, a new approach. Wikipedia has to be more sensitive and inclusive to a new crop of more recent authors and historians who are reevaluating the Italian performance. It is no longer enough to say: Well, that's what the majority of writers have written. In this case, the majority of writers in the past were either wrong, in error or biased against the Italian war effort or did not have the complete picture. Certain editors of Wikipedia are intent only on propagating the old stereotyped myths about the Italians. These editors will not or cannot change their views because they themselves have swallowed the half-truths, propaganda and false information, so I appeal to a younger set of editors to actually read and start quoting more recent books and articles, so that the injustices of the past can be rectified regarding the Italian participation in the war.
As wiki editors, we need to do more to redress the balance. While there has been an over-reliance on authors who have written biased and derogatory nonsense of the Italian war effort, there are also too many wiki-editors who have taken it upon themselves to present the Italians in a bad light due to misplaced nationalism, and even, I dare say it, a certain loathing for that country. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 20:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Irondome, you wanted to see evidence of the bias and bad writing in WP articles concerning Italy and the Italians, here's one I recently tagged: take a look at this "beauty" from the Greco-Italian War article:
The politically degenerate framework, as in the parallel case of Nazi Germany, had in the meantime remunerated subservience, servility, servile quality and sycophancy. vague Past that, all types of political association had been diminished to close to a veneer: delegate bodies exclusively in outward appearance, yet in actuality close to vehicles of promulgation and recognition of the pioneer. further explanation needed The despot had been told, over and again, that he was trustworthy; and he accepted the blandishments. [1] According to Kershaw, when things started unravelling in Italy's war effort, the Italian political elites did not accept their share of the responsibility for the failures, although they were eager to take credit for the successes, when things were going well. vague Kershaw concludes that the stupidity of Mussolini's choice reflected the despot's extreme individual inadequacies. At the same time it was additionally the idiocy of a political framework. [2] clarification needed
To his credit, Dr K deleted this crap yesterday. This is exactly what I am talking about. However, many other anti-Italian passages are not so obvious as the above. While they are careful to quote the right authors, use the "right" tone, they use weasel words, cherry-picking, adding negative connotations and ambiguous wording, selective writing and a certain "twist" that while, on the surface, appear legitimate, but when you dig deeper, have changed the original intent or meaning of the author. In the coming weeks, I will single out such passages and paste them here for others to see and judge. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 20:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Irondome, I think you might have the wrong guy here. I've never made any contributions to the Counterattack at Arras or Siege of Calais unless someone had got into my account and pretended to be me! As for the Italian invasion of France in 1940, I feel that overall, my contributions there have actually improved the article tremendously. I took the position that contrary to how some authors have decided to view it, the Italian campaign cannot be judged too harshly if the Italian army only had 3 or at most, 4 days of fighting in very difficult terrain before the armistice. I thought that the way the article was originally written was too censorious and critical of the Italian invasion of France. Again, Anglo authors especially appear very good at bringing up all the defects and negatives of the campaign, when more could have been done to highlight some of the positive gains as well, such as the taking of Menton, and over-coming several French fortifications and progress through mountain passes (and all in just a few days of fighting with bridges destroyed and roads mined).
As for your assertion that I hold a certain "animus" against Greek contributions, far from it! I admire the Greeks for the strong resistance against the Italian invading army. At the time, most people and leaders didn't give Greece much of a chance against the Italians, for they were truly the underdog. Due to a gross underestimation of the Greek fighting spirit, the Italians got a big surprise and had to retreat and regroup in Albania. That's fine. But where I draw the line is where our Greek friends will cherry-pick quotes to make the Italians look worse than they really were. I still maintain, and so do several more recent historians, that while the Italians may have failed to dislodge the Greeks in several offensives, they did not lose the war. Ultimately they emerged victorious, though it was a qualified victory, one with reservations. One could also say that the Greeks, as their general Papagos, admitted - simply couldn't "break the Italians" - meaning, they simply could not defeat them, try as they might.
As the eminent historian Gerhard Weinberg in frustration declared, there has been far too much denigration of the Italian military in WW2, criticism that is unwarranted and unfair. It does appear to me with glaring clarity that Italian failures are highlighted while Italian successes are either ignored or downplayed in many of the Wiki articles. There are authors out there who maintain that the quality of Italian leadership was on par with other armies in WW2; that the quality of Italian troops, Navy and Air force, were on par on even better than other armies in WW2. What is mistaken for incompetence or failure or negligence was often a lack of resources and materials to do the job as effectively as for example, the Americans or Germans could do with their abundance of war material. Italy simply lacked the resources to conduct a war that lasted so long. It could, at best, conduct a 6 month war - how it managed to stay in the fight for 3 and a half years, is something a PhD history student should do a thesis on as we would all like to know the answers to that question.
Sturvogel wrote that - Line Italian infantry units were often best characterized as the unwilling led by the incompetent so it was no wonder that they often collapsed quickly in the face of British and Commonwealth attacks.
This is precisely the sort of attitude and writing that I am trying to correct. If Sturvogel actually believes this type of fallacy, then it isn't hard to see that when he writes about the Italian army, this attitude or what I call, repeating a mantra or blind ideology, will be reflected in his writing. Who maintained this? A dozen or so Anglo or American or German armchair historians? Ask yourself the questions: Were they unwilling? Did they often collapse quickly?" Because so and so said so? If we already know (as Gerhard Weinberg laments) that much war historiography about the Italians is anti-Italian and needlessly derogatory, then we have to take such statements with a large grain of skepticism. I read somewhere that one British pilot in Malta was so fed up with newspaper reporters writing back home such misinformation as: the sight of one spitfire was enough to scare off a squadron of Italian planes, that he punched the reporter in the face. To that British pilot, the Italians were not a pushover at all.
AnnalesSchool ( talk) 19:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, just about every soldier who ever fought, has thought that his commanders and superiors were incompetent, that the leadership didn't know what they were doing, and that they weren't given enough weaponry and materials to do the job properly. With all due respect to your cousins, they could only see the war from a micro point of view. Do you think that a German soldier retreating before the Russians day after day all across the Ukraine, Latvia or Poland, didn't share the same sentiments as your cousins and have doubts about it all and start to view the war as ludicrous? The Italians did have their victories on a small scale, but when Germany was sinking, so too would all its axis partners. The Hungarians, the Bulgarians, Romanians, half the population of the Ukraine, and the Baltic States, as well as Slovakia and half of Europe, including Italy, all pinned their hopes on the Germans. Only Spain and a couple of others, wisely refrained from taking sides. But when it became obvious that the Germans couldn't win, well .... that's another story! AnnalesSchool ( talk) 22:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Really? are you an expert? How do you know? Then can I suggest you go on the Axis History Forum and explain your reasons to carlodinechi succinctly and accurately. But be warned: he doesn't tolerate fools lightly.
You wrote: to do impartial history you need to get the list of defeats and compare the two lists.
Can I suggest you get to writing that list of defeats and post them on the forum. And while you're at it, a list of Allied defeats as well. It should be fun comparing them. The nation who has the biggest list of victories and the shortest list of defeats wins the prize! A day with David Irwing on one of his Hitler Bunker tours!!!
Your idea of comparing lists smacks of a high school approach to history Rjensen. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Irondome, again you have misjudged me. I didn't write it - it was someone called --58.178.80.30 (talk) who left it on my Talk Page. Did you see above the recent example of a bad piece of anti-Italian writing I tagged. Well I will copy and paste it now for you below:
Irondome, you wanted to see evidence of the bias and bad writing in WP articles concerning Italy and the Italians, here's one I recently tagged: take a look at this "beauty" from the Greco-Italian War article:
The politically degenerate framework, as in the parallel case of Nazi Germany, had in the meantime remunerated subservience, servility, servile quality and sycophancy. vague Past that, all types of political association had been diminished to close to a veneer: delegate bodies exclusively in outward appearance, yet in actuality close to vehicles of promulgation and recognition of the pioneer. further explanation needed The despot had been told, over and again, that he was trustworthy; and he accepted the blandishments. [1] According to Kershaw, when things started unravelling in Italy's war effort, the Italian political elites did not accept their share of the responsibility for the failures, although they were eager to take credit for the successes, when things were going well. vague Kershaw concludes that the stupidity of Mussolini's choice reflected the despot's extreme individual inadequacies. At the same time it was additionally the idiocy of a political framework. [2] clarification needed
To his credit, Dr K deleted this crap yesterday. This is exactly what I am talking about. However, many other anti-Italian passages are not so obvious as the above. While they are careful to quote the right authors, use the "right" tone, they use weasel words, cherry-picking, adding negative connotations and ambiguous wording, selective writing and a certain "twist" that while, on the surface, appear legitimate, but when you dig deeper, have changed the original intent or meaning of the author. In the coming weeks, I will single out such passages and paste them here for others to see and judge. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 20:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
References
How many times to we need to rehash this tiresome POV pushing? I agree that this is a classic case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it and the associated POV-pushing editing has reached a point where a topic ban (or indefinite-duration block) would be well and truly justified. This discussion, for instance, appears to be a continuation of the nonsense at Talk:Military history of Greece during World War II#The Italian attack on Greece wasn't a failure which started with AnnalesSchool once again claiming that the Italian invasion of Greece was somehow a great success, with the Germans merely providing "timely ... assistance". We've been here before, it was pointed out that this flies in the face of history, but yet AnnalesSchool keeps pushing this POV. Abusive stuff like this is entirely unacceptable, but is also standard for AnnalesSchool. Enough is enough. Nick-D ( talk) 10:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Dr K, it is not POV pushing. I never said that the Greco-Italian war was a great success story for the Italians - I do believe that it wasn't the great "failure" that editors (who often seem to have Greek non-de-plumes strangely enough) that is being portrayed and pushed down our throats.
Now, if an eminent historian like Gerhard Weinberg believes there has been far too much denigration of the Italian war effort, then perhaps we as editors should listen and not continue to bury our heads in the sand. If you don't believe me, will you believe and listen to him, and others like Sadkovich and Stockings and O'Hara and others. I simply want to redress the imbalance. If that is POV pushing, then I plead guilty! But I am not POV pushing. Time and time again I try to introduce authors who are saying: well hang on a minute, the Italians were not as bad as that - and nearly every time my edits have been reverted for all sorts of reasons, or often, no reason at all. Recently my edits have been reverted by Alexikou and Constantine (or Cpslikas as he seems to be an editor with two names or accounts). Time and time again, when I try to make the language more neutral, more academic and less derogatory towards the Italians, my edits are reverted. Time and time again when I tag sentences as lacking in citation, vague, ambiguous or peacocking, etc, these edits get reverted too. When I try to discuss things on the Talk page, no compromise is reached, or I am simply ignored. It seems as if a clique of editors simply don't want these sacro-sanct articles changed, even to a word! They appear to think they own the articles, when it is clear they have no proprietary rights to them at all.
AnnalesSchool (
talk) 11:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
********************
Another pro-Italian attempt[edit source] The specific edit 1 is the epitomy of pov, "the Greeks were so hard pressed to hold the line against this latest Italian onslaught that General Pagagos "decided not to launch any further large-scale operations in Albania without Yugoslav assistance.". Not to mention that its completely out of the context of the primavera offensive, which, by the way, was another clear Greek victory. ("in the end the Tepelene offensive was succesfuully repulsed by the Greeks").Alexikoua (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
For instance the claim that the Greek side was "running low on reserves of men and war material." is a result of the fact that "by early March German intentions have became increasingly apparent. The danger of the German thrust... was serious ". I'm afraid that the editor who's is eager to add about the Greek weakness intentionally (and systematically) ignores the German threat in the Balkan theatre of operations in order to overemphasize the supposed Italian military supremacy. Thus, I won't object to present the full picture on each paragraph.Alexikoua (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
THE TWO REFERENCES IN QUESTION
Stockings and Hancock[edit source] According to Stockings and Hancock, by the first week of March, "the General Greek staff were facing a number of serious problems." Not only was the conflict intensifying with the Italians, but they were running low on reserves of men and war material. The Italians presented what they called, an "existential threat" that continued to pin down the bulk of the Greek Army[1]
However, the Greeks were so hard pressed to hold the line against this latest Italian onslaught that General Pagagos "decided not to launch any further large-scale operations in Albania without Yugoslav assistance."[2]
What exactly is wrong with the above? Can you explain your objections more clearly Alexikoua and propose some sort of solution?AnnalesSchool (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
*************
The above, taken from the Talk Page of the Greco-Italian War article, is a good example of the continual obfuscation I experience when trying to add more balance and deeper insight to the articles dealing with Italy.
AnnalesSchool (
talk) 13:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
published an article in the Journal of Military History, stating publicly that
"there is far too much denigration of the performance of Italy’s forces during the conflict. It was the Germans who insisted on the substitution of their enigma encoding machines that the British were reading for Italian ciphers that had not been cracked. As James Sadkovich has shown, the performance of the Italian navy and army was not as poor as much of the contemporary joking and subsequent writings suggest. Missing from most of the literature is the participation of Italian army units in the fighting on the Eastern Front, and the extent to which the heavy casualties those units suffered contributed to the rapid evaporation of support for the fascist system among the Italian public"
then we as wiki war history editors should actually stand up and listen.
The Italian invasion of France article has improved a lot, due to my urging and pointing out its many defects. I challenged you to do a better, more comprehensive job, and by and large, you did. But I still think that your "analysis" of the many defects and faults of the invading Italian army, is over-kill, while at the same time, the successes of the campaign are only lightly touched upon or given curt attention. I think you have taken Sica and others like him on board too much. ie. How about their socks? Were they the right length or thickness?
However, I did like that final assessment by General Emilio Faldella:
"At the front, near the border, the mission of the French forts was to delay the Italian army from reaching the line of defense, made up of steel and concrete fortifications. . . Our infantry had to advance in the open against well-protected troops through a field under French artillery fire. . . And all this was to happen in three to four days. In these conditions, greater Italian manpower has no advantage. . . It would be a mistake to say that a battle was fought in the western Alps; what took place were only preliminary actions, technically called 'making contact'. It is not possible to speak in terms of victory or defeat. . .[136]"
because it supports my contention that while the Italian attack on France was not a glaring victory, neither was it a failed invasion or defeat. However, the Italians did make political and strategic capital out of it, with some nice armistice concessions from the French, so from that point of view, it hardly "failed". AnnalesSchool ( talk) 21:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It is really unfair that I should be singled out for such abuse and mistreatment as this. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 23:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, this will be the last I will say on the subject. In future, I will try to work more cooperatively and sensitively with my fellow co-editors. I do apologize sincerely for any offense or injury I may have given. In future, I will put my money where my mouth is, and do less criticizing of others and more research in producing reliable sources that can add greater depth of knowledge to the article. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 11:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Cplakidas/Constantine, I have already apologized if I had stepped on people's toes and was perhaps too forthright and direct and have promised to turn over a new leaf and take TomStar81's advice and in the coming months produce reliable sources that I hope will balance out many of the articles dealing with the Italian involvement in North Africa, the Balkans, Greece and France. Happily there is a new generation of historians who are reevaluating Italy's performance in a more positive light. I will bring these authors and what they have to say to light for other editors to debate and ponder over and reach a new consensus. I now realise that only by "concensus" can we go forward, so in that respect, I have learnt my lesson. I will be more respectful and patient. But I am here for the long haul and so I say to you Cplakidas/Constantine, and to others, let's bury the hatchet and move forward together to improve the articles because if history is anything, it is not static but continually evolving as new research and investigations shed light on new information and what we once thought was Truth with a capital T, has been found to be not as true as we once believed.
AnnalesSchool (
talk) 11:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm in the process of adding and re-writing information on the article, and I have a question with the usage of dates of the battle. The given battle dates is apparently the O.S. dating, while the dates given from a few of the sources online gives the apparent N.S. dating: Historic Cities of the Americas p. 629, Wars of the Americas p. 117, Almanac of American Military History p. 54. Do I change the dates, or do something else? Thanks for reading! LeftAire ( talk) 21:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
A {{ merge to}} tag has been posted to the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, suggesting a merger of that article into the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station article. If anyone is interested in weighing-in, please see Talk:Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station#Cheyenne Mountain Complex merge discussion. (I am also posting this on the Cold War and Aviation project talk pages, since they may have an interest in this discussion, too). Thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Gday. The issue of this website being added as an external link recently came up at the North African Campaign article and the there discussion is ongoing. However, this aside there seems to be a wider issue as from a quick search I can see that Commandosupremo [3] has actually been used in at least 16 of our articles as a source (including many references which link to forum discussions on the website, not articles - a list of Wikipedia articles including the reference is here [4]). An example is at Biscari massacre where the forum post at http://www.comandosupremo.com/forums/topic/1784-historian-uncovers-new-details-on-sicily-massacre/ is used as a reference. This seems fairly concerning to me as I can't possibly see how it would qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS. That said I'm interested in other editors opinions on this issue, including possible solutions. I'm leaning towards excising all links to the site (or at least just the references to forum posts). Anotherclown ( talk) 01:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI - I've gone through and removed these now, replacing the references with citations to books etc where I could find replacements in WP:RS. Anotherclown ( talk) 13:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Input from persons familiar with the subject matter would be welcome at Talk:Armenian_Genocide#File:Armenian_Genocide_Map-en.svg_to_appear_as_POTD; there is currently a concern that an image scheduled to feature on the main page for the 100th anniversary of the genocide is not accurate, and I am not familiar enough with the matter to make a decision on my own. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please take a moment of your time to throw in an oppose or support vote. Thanks in advance. :) Jonas Vinther • ( speak to me!) 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Just in passing I came across Ranks and insignia of NATO air forces enlisted (and similar), now to my English viewpoint it doesnt actually make any sense as a title and is what I think of as the American "Enlisted" a common name in NATO for other ranks. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile "enlisted" does not "compute" in the NATO context of the article. "Other ranks" is or was common in the British context and fits the old "nine officers and 200 men" one finds in some historical accounts. To be "other" one first has to understand it excludes the "officers" of any NATO military organization. If you look at the "ranks" covered you will see those other than U.S. forces (and if you split hairs they are noncoms) have titles far from the "enlisted" concept everyone is talking about above: Canada—Chief Warrant Officer, Belgium—Adjudant-Major, Bulgaria—Офицерски кандидат (Officer candidate?), France—Major. The title requires adjustment. Palmeira ( talk) 15:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, looking for a little research help on the above article. I have seen several references around the net that the division was based in Lancashire, where it was Western Command's training formation. However, I have not been able to tie down where exactly. I believe it may have been the training grounds at Altcar, where Western Command's weapon training school was located yet I have nothing solid or sourcable.
I have used the net and GoogleBooks to look up every regiment that was associated with the division without any luck. I have a few other sites to check, but I am not holding my breath to be honest (since there is little found by searching for the division itself). So if anyone has a source or knows where to look it would be much appreciated. Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I've upgraded HNoMS Otra (1939) to start class, as it was clearly not a stub. would an independant editor assess it against the B-class criteria please? Mjroots ( talk) 21:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The remains of Lancaster B III JA914 are displayed at the German Museum of Technology. Where was this aircraft built? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone please help me find info about an obituary in a local newspaper at Cape Cod? Regarding the following obituary of James Hamilton Kean (a.k.a. Jim Kean and James H. Kean) I would like to know:
I am trying to cite the following from the obituary (of an unnamed local newspaper at Cape Cod: "He personally supervised the evacuation of approximate 1000 Americans and several thousand Vietnamese in advance of approaching North Vietnamese force". If there are other sources, please say so. -- 20yardsaway ( talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have a better image for this TFA than File:SM UD 3 port.jpg? That's too grainy. Images are helpful for pulling in Main Page readers. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a question at TFAR on how best to mark V-E day. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Dank: The Mark Oliphant article might be a good candidate due to his work with the Manhattan Project. It's currently under review as a Featured Article candidate. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 15:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Fokker Scourge the relevance of the infobox added to the article has been questioned, does anyone know of a better one? thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding THC Texas Rising that has some of us upgrading the Texas Revolution article, here's from the from the History Channel: Preview of Texas Rising. FYI, Mdennis (WMF) — Maile ( talk) 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Germany uses a similar B-checklist as WP:MILHIST. When MILHIST-members assess a Germany-related article anyway, please consider adding a copy of the checklist to the Germany banner template as well. The criteria are similar enough (in fact MILHIST requirements are a bit stricter), and such assessments can be done by any interested Wikipedian - this would help to avoid unnecessary backlogs. I try to fill out both banners anyway - being in both projects :). Many thanks for your help. GermanJoe ( talk) 12:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Cambodian Civil War is currently an A Class article belonging to your project but it is lacking in citations in a number of areas. It seems has fallen into some disrepair over the years. Perhaps someone here could go through it and bring it back up to standard? I've done what little I could. 49.197.25.169 ( talk) 20:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Input would be welcome. Srnec ( talk) 22:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
An IP editor is attempting to insert content using user generated content sources at the article Xiong Yan (dissident). I am coming up to the third revision rule and need others to assist.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015
As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:
It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au
We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry ( talk) 05:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Up for deletion on the basis that the articles string together battles to call them a war without sources naming the group of battles as a war. Dougweller ( talk) 09:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) One of out intrepid bilingual editors is transferring data from [6] the German page but we've hit a snag. Neither of us know how to move the map coords from the German to the English page. It looks easy but isn't, if anyone knows how I'd be grateful for advice. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The military history article LIM-49 Nike Zeus is undergoing a FA candidacy and it looks like it could use some more feedback. Thank you. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
In the course of a bit of work involving Cousinot's Chronique de la Pucelle I happened on the wikipage for the book itself. This is sound but at some point in 2013, an IP editor added a paragraph apparently refering to a fantastical tale included by Cousinot. Intrigued (it is Munchhausen-esque), I tried to locate it in the online edition with no result. I suspect it is an unspotted hoax. I've put a little more on the talk page but would welcome hoax-spotters to take a look Monstrelet ( talk) 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about using hyphens in the names of Nazi SS units and organizations at WT:Manual of Style#Hyphen for SS units and organizations. Feel free to offer your opinions on this issue.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I have created a horizontal version of the rather lengthy Template:Ancient Rome military sidebar, at Template:Ancient Rome military. All the best, Simon Burchell ( talk) 10:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, do any of our members have access to this book? If so, would they be willing to check out the following pages (gleaned from GoogleBooos and Amazon) and update the 70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) accordingly?
On pp. 144, 157, and 249, Slim mentions the division. On p.292 he mentions being angered at something being allocated to Wingate, is this relevant to the division? Between pp.269-275, the fighting at Taung Bazar is recounted. Is this fighting during May 1943, and is there any mention of the role of the British 23rd Infantry Brigade?
Thank you EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 09:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The current article for proxy war appears to have a bad definition of proxy war. In addition, the list of examples seems unnecessary to me. It would make more sense to me to simply provide a link to List of proxy wars. Notable proxy wars could be listed under the See Also section. Because of these two issues, I've created a draft for it. You can see it here. Could I get some feedback on it? Compassionate727 ( talk) 16:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Military, you might find Draft:Henry Bachtold interesting. Do tell me about whether you think the draft is suitable for inclusion by pinging me or placing a talkback on my talk page. Thanks! Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 14:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
In the last 24 hours, material has been added to the article that has been opposed by several editors (myself included). The war is just before 3RR, and little is being discussed on the talkpage. Intervention before 3RR? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 19:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
G'day, @ WP:MILHIST coordinators: (and any other admins) Battle of Buna–Gona was recently overwritten by Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona with this edit: [7] This was done as a copy-paste move due to the existence of the article within articlespace. Could one of our resident admins please take a look and see if a histmerge could be undertaken in order to provide the appropriate attribution in the article's history log? Thanks in advance. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 21:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI I have started a merge proposal at Australian landing ship medium Clive Steele (AV 1356). Anotherclown ( talk) 11:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear military experts: Here's an old draft that will shortly be deleted unless someone takes and interest in it. Is this something that should be kept and improved? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
If you are interested in Napoleonic Wars, there is a new featured article in fr.wiki concerning its economical aspects.
Rifford ( talk) 23:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I just need to point out that references are needed for notable enlistments (such as Lee Sungmin of Super Junior) in the Conscription in South Korea page.
Thanks!
Tibbydibby ( talk) 19:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been removing flags from infoboxes on military weapons articles for several months now. Sometimes I also see them in "See also" sections, and I remove them from there also. Today, I ran into an odd style in the See also section of a Taiwanese article, per this diff. It looks like this:
I removed the flags and colorbox, but they came back again. :( The same user has also added or modified several other articles on Taiwanese weapons to have flags in the See also section, but some of the flags predate the IP's activities, but it may be the same person who originally added them. I haven't had time to troll the article histories yet to find out.
I've been operating under the assumption that using flags in See also sections isn't recommended by the project, but I wanted to confirm this before I begin a crusade of stripping these flags out wholesale. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the recent addition of some important information that corrects certain previously held erroneous views in relation to the self-firing "drip rifle" (or "pop off rifle") at Anzac Cove, etc., are there particular, relevant additions and embellishments that need to be made to William Scurry -- or does there need to be, also, in addition to the article on William Scurry, an independent article on the "drip rifle"? 220.239.181.181 ( talk) 08:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Just want to raise if it makes sense to put an infobox for military helmets such as the M1 and the PASGT? Thinking of a way to make it neat. Ominae ( talk) 14:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The author of National Association of Army Nurses of the Civil War would like a review of that article by editors familiar with the American Civil War. Roches ( talk) 20:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Pursuant to the previous discussion that ended in no consensus, I've started an RfC at the article titles policy page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi to all,
I was looking at No Gun Ri Massacre, and I was wondering if anyone -- preferably uninvolved in the article -- would be interested in conducting a peer review on it. It has been the site of some pretty intense disputes, particularly concerning some of the sources used, but the dust seems to have settled now. Still, it would be good to get a fresh perspective.
Thanks!
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 23:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There are conflicting statements as to which British division(s) invaded Somalia during World War II. We will focus specifically on Mogadishu on this first part. As of now statements are spilt into three groups: solely Nigerians, a combination of West African, East African, and South African troops, and soley South Africans, the last one seems the most likely to me since they too invaded the former British Somaliland. However, I found a YouTube video (hear me out first since it's from British Pathè) that states that Australian troops where the first to enter. Anyways, the invasion of Somalia as whole seems to have been mainly South Africans and Indians. This is all quite confusing. I would greatly appreciate the help of individuals with knowledge of World War II. AcidSnow ( talk) 22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The relevant volume of the British official history is online here. It states that the 23rd Nigerian Brigade captured Mogadishu unopposed. There were virtually no Australian forces in this theatre (other than one or two RAN warships when the Italians invaded British East Africa, and a tiny number of advisers to Ethiopia). Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Moyse-Bartlett's history of the King's African Rifles (Volume 2 pp 512–513) says that a platoon of C Coy 1/3 KAR was with the lead elements of the Nigerian Brigade when they reached the outskirts of Mog, but a patrol of infantry and armoured cars found the town undefended. Stapleton's Military History of Africa (Vol 1 p 212) says Mogadishu was captured by the motorised Nigerian brigade of the 11th African Division. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 02:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
In response to recent edits and questions on the Talk:Battle of the Alamo, a framework is being laid down by Karanacs for a detailed examination of the article's current state. The end goal is to get it up to the standard of Texas Revolution. Although the article achieved FA status in 2009, several thousand edits have happened since then. — Maile ( talk) 19:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The article proxy war recently was overhauled. Due to the significant changes, I think the article should be reevaluated to see if it fits into a different class now. If somebody could take care of that, I would appreciate it. Compassionate727 ( talk) 13:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk: Bosnian War about the number of casualties that UNPROFOR suffered. There seems to be some disagreement between sources, with some stating almost twice the number specified on the UN website. Input would be welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has started regarding the appropriate start date of the Somali Civil War to note in the article's infobox. Wider community input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there anyone here who is familiar with cryptography? Marian Rejewski is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Marian Rejewski/archive1, and is close to a save, but we need help (see comments on the FAR). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to know if there are any guidelines on which infobox ( Template:Infobox weapon or Template:Infobox automobile) should be used for military trucks. I've noticed another editor asked the same question before on Template talk:Infobox weapon, without answer.— Cloverleaf II ( talk) 14:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
A summary of one of Milhist's Featured Articles will appear on the Main Page soon. The WP:FAC nominator (a former Milhist coord) hasn't edited in years, so I'm hoping someone else will have a look. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out that anyone would like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if someone could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Citadel48 keeps disrupting Bijeljina massacre (an A-Class article) and stubbornly refuses to understand what is problematic with his/her edits . I've run out of patience and really don't feel like getting to an edit war with an inexperienced user. Someone take over from here. 23 editor ( talk) 19:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
User:23 editor has very strong views on what needs and does not need to be included. With views that strong, he or she must consider self publishing or increase their level of tolerance towards alternative views on what is important and relevant. The most disappointing is the lack of basic competence resulting in challenging CNN and BBC type sources on alleged copyright infringement grounds. The user should get basic training in concepts such as fair use doctrine and should not be given editorial functions. Editorial rights are a responsibility that requires a level of maturity. tolerance and competence that seem to be lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Colleagues, I thought I might want to bring to your attention: Wikipedia:McFarland. In coordination with the Wikipedia Library, publishers McFarland are offering PDFs of up to five books per editor who signs up. There are quite a few Military History books, so I thought you all might want some free resources. :) A list of their Military History books is here. Miyagawa ( talk) 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
I'm looking for some editors who might willing to leave their sentiment and opinion to following case: User: Pensiveneko is engaging in mutiple webpages, with the commonly tenor to remove all the iffy things that might not fit his POV within a week. See: 1 (I will remove Bias / Opinion) 2, 3, 4.
The User is name-calling serious and reputable publications of scholars into an inappropriate magnitude, because of this, I felt responsible to report his behavior to an Administrator: Nick-D See our conversation: 1
I appreciate and welcome further contributions. Thank you. Regards LikePancakes ( talk) 12:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
For Lists, most WikiProjects have no quality assessment classifications between List-class and FL-class. MILHIST is exceptional in that CL, BL and AL are all provided - but there is no class between BL and AL, equivalent to GA (see WP:MHA#SCALE). There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List, which would fit into that gap. Please add your comments there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I have created stubs on 2 Scottish politicians who also appear to have been generals in the British Army. Can anyone help improve the military side of these articles?
Any expansion would be great. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Asking for assistance with the article 2007 Shinwar shooting. While POV issues have been raised regarding it in the past, it gives heavy weight the the allegations of war crimes by United States Marines, and gives very little weight to the court of inquiry which cleared the Marines of wrong doing. I have added links to the current Military Times series being published about the event. I hope we can collaborate to improve the article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I am bemused to see that an editor whose user page advertises themselves as a former member of the US Army is arguing that more weight should be given to internal inquiry by a branch of the US armed services. I suggest that this article would benefit from the scrutiny of editors whose idea of NPOV doesn't derive from service with the military forces of either the Taliban or the United States. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please come participate in the discussion on changing Romanization in the Japan-related manual of style. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Melee has recently been nominated of moving Talk:Melee#Requested move 9 March 2015 and then for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee). There is now a debate over whether is appropriate to include the maintenance {{ coatrack}} in the article Melee. More participation in the debate on talk:Melee might help build a consensus. Of course as nothing is ever a battle on Wikipedia no one expects there to be melee. -- PBS ( talk) 17:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
A RfC has been opened at Talk:1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla regarding whether the article should include a list of the names of the Yugoslav National Army soldiers killed. Feel free to chime in. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 11:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I am working on a biography of an officer of the Royal Scots Army (1660–1707), who from 1689–92 was a captain in the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot.
So far as I can see, there is no Category:Royal Scots Army personnel nor any appropriate regimental sub-cat of Category:Scottish soldiers. Any suggestions on how to categorise this phase of his career?
This man later served in the post-1707 British Army, which I have no prob categorising, but I am stuck on his earlier Scottish service. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've just uploaded some high-quality images of World War One objects from York Museums Trusts collections as part of the Yorkshire Network GLAMwiki Project. I hope you find them useful! Let me know if there's anything else I might be able to help with. Cheers, PatHadley ( talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't that Sherlock Holmes? -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 23:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Norman Dike is primarily known as "Foxhole Norman" to viewers of the HBO series and readers of the associated books ( Stephen Ambrose et. al.). While trying to broaden the article, I came upon two interesting items. In his published biography, Clancy Lyall relates that Dike did not panic, but acted erratically because he had been wounded. A blog (I know) quotes Brown University Alumni Monthly dated April 1947 as follows:
The Lyall book is in Google Books; few of the alumni monthlies are on line and I could not find April 1947. If anyone has access to the alumni pubs, please check for the paragraph in question. Thanks.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please disregard the request above. I stumbled around until I broke the code on the page numbering for the magazine. However, I would appreciate it if one one or more here will look at the way I've integrated the information more favorable to Dike. It does strike me that he could have been the source of the information in the alumni monthly; if so, he didn't paint a favorable picture of himself to counter other publications because it was years too early. There's still Lyall's account to consider.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I'd appreciate if you could comment (either in support or against) on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rivadavia-class battleship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
As I've got the "show article quality" preference set, I was a little surprised to that the List of shipwrecks in September 1942 shows as Start class instead of List class. This is apparrently due to a Milhist assessment. Any reason that all B class parameters are not met? IMHO, they are. Mjroots ( talk) 18:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
See my comments on this AfC submission. Do you agree? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, Soviet aviator's headgear, but I'm guessing someone knows more than that. - Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Before I start any effort towards creating an article, I would like others to look at the research I have found thus far for Colonel Melvin Garten, U.S. Army (ret.) who recently died (Village Voice source). Potential subject received some coverage in this book, David H. Hackworth; Julie Sherman (15 April 1990). About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior. Simon and Schuster. p. 529. ISBN 978-0-671-69534-7., and in-depth coverage in this book, Seymour Brody (2004). Jewish Heroes & Heroines of America: 151 True Stories of Jewish American Heroism. Frederick Fell Publishers. pp. 260–261. ISBN 978-0-88391-026-9. (same author later wrote piece about the potential subject in a pdf published by Florida Atlantic University). Potential subject was also a subject of an article published by the Oregonian in 2012, and another article published by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in 1953. While the potential subject appears to pass WP:ANYBIO & WP:GNG, potential falls short of WP:SOLDIER only being awarded one second-tier valor medal, and not being a flag/general officer. It can be argued that as a lieutenant colonel whose unit's actions were given significant coverage during Vietnam, that the subject does meet SOLDIER's criteria about "commanded a substantial body of troops in combat" or "played an important roll in a significant military event" Given that there will likely be WP:NOTMEMORIAL objections, should this article be written?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC at Talk:2015 Kumanovo shootings in regards to the article name. Any thoughts from editors would be greatly appreciated. XavierGreen ( talk) 23:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Labuan/archive1 (my nomination) has been open for just on three weeks, and would benefit from additional reviewers - with negative or positive comments. Thanks Nick-D ( talk) 04:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
During WW 2 Admiral Gerald Charles Dickens should have mentioned the Norwegian merchant fleet and its importance for carrying supplies to GB, is there any one can give me a reference to this... Breg -- Pmt ( talk) 13:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There's a on-going dispute over the result's nature of the Battle of Arsuf, if someone else wish to participate. Aozyk ( talk) 23:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan ( talk) 18:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
All comments and suggestions are welcome here. Thank you for your time in advance. Borsoka ( talk) 03:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Should Jabal Shammar be listed as a Central Powers co-belligerent during World War I?
See
Template_talk:World_War_I_infobox#RfC_(14_April_2015). —
Srnec (
talk) 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi to all,
Once more, I am requesting a review of No Gun Ri Massacre, in part due to the intense feuding and debate over sources that has transpired on that page. If anyone were to volunteer, I would be very grateful.
Thanks,
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I'm a communications guy at Lockheed Martin, and I just wanted to bring your attention to a small error about Lockheed Martin's SEWIP program (AN/SLQ-32C(V)6) for the Littoral Combat Ship on AN/SLQ-32_Electronic_Warfare_Suite#Future. The system used on USS Freedom (LCS-1) is a scaled version of Block 2, but it is not Block 3, which is not in production yet. The reference linked in the article can easily be misread to think it is the Block 3 system, but the contract for SEWIP Block 3 (which will be a future upgrade to Lockheed Martin's AN/SLQ-32C(V)6) was only just awarded. I would edit it myself, but I don't think you'd want a corporate guy mucking about in your WikiProject, which is hugely impressive in scope, btw. ( GLesLM ( talk) 13:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC))
I'd like to get some sunlight over at melee. The article's notability is dubious. It seems to be more of a prose list of times people in history have used the word "melee", more than an article on a coherent military topic. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 15:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Rape during the Rwandan Genocide has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 06:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on Draft:Battle of the Isefjorden? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST|class=draft}}
--
65.94.43.89 (
talk) 05:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Talk pages for ship indices are routinely tagged with {{WPMILHIST|class=DAB}}
. This may give the impression that the articles are disambiguation pages. But they're not.
WP:NOTDAB states, in bold, a set index article is not a disambiguation page. Do we need a parameter class=setindex
?
Stanning (
talk) 13:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Is CUES notable enough to warrant an article given that PRC and USA are now using it?
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2715
Hcobb ( talk) 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Budding off from U.S.–Soviet Incidents at Sea agreement for now. Hcobb ( talk) 12:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I'm still working on a draft article about Military Imposters (what Americans call "Stolen Valor"), which I intend to go live with about June or so. In preparation for this, I was scouring around wikipedia to find related articles and information, and came across the following biographical ones. These all appear to be individuals accused or convicted of lying about military service, but there is nothing else notable about these people that I can see. And according to WP:PERP, they don't qualify because some have never been convicted of crimes and others have had no coverage in any reliable works since their convictions. Therefore I am trying to delete them. A previous attempt was made with PROD by other editors but the admins rejected those because they are supposed to be "uncontroversial" deletions, so looks like we have to do this the hard way. I only nominated two for AFD because I can't keep track of so many at the moment. Feel free to comment on deletion discussions or nominate the others if you can take care of monitoring them (please mark them here so there won't be overlap. Thanks, Legitimus ( talk) 20:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There's also this list page which seems questionable.
Can someone take a look at this orphaned article? Is it worthy of its own article or can it be deleted/redirected somewhere? Could someone more knowledgeable please take a look? Gbawden ( talk) 08:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
With the newly implemented class=setindex
should some of the {{
mil-unit-dis}} (ones that only lists military units) be converted to set indexes ? and pages such as
Battle of Fallujah (ones that only list combat/military battles) -- then we could redlink battles missing articles, and units missing articles... I will note that that is how shiplists currently work, with redlinks to missing ship articles. --
65.94.43.89 (
talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Historian George Forty states that the 77th Division had "a special role of re-classifying men such as those who had returned from overseas under the six-year rule, returned POW, etc."
I have not been able to find any further information on this, anyone have any ideas what exactly this six-year rule is? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 01:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
PYTHON was the name given to the scheme started after VE Day that concerned repatriation and accumulated leave of regulars who had been serving overseas and also demobilization of overseas non-regulars, plus leave entitlement.. The favourite item of conversation in messes and canteens was one's PYTHON number. This number was based on a points system with points allowed for total length of service and the length of time one had been overseas. Points were also given for decorations awarded and for married men with children under 18. years of age.
LILOP was another scheme, it stood for Leave In Lieu Of Python. This was popular with regulars who were entitled to repatriation according to their Python number but who volunteered to be sent overseas again.
LIAP was a third scheme which was Leave In Addition to Python. I applied for LIAP when I was in the Arakan and had been 4 1/2 years overseas. I flew back to UK in a Dakota from Rangoon or perhaps Calcutta and landed at an RAF airfield in Somerset. I have no memories at all of this flight. I had 14 days leave and then I reported to the RE Depot Bn at Halifax. After about a week spent in drinking beer in pubs and chasing congenial nurses I boarded a troopship that arrived in Bombay three days after the Hiroshima bomb went off. Hurrah! - a free bottle of beer for all on board. Keith-264 ( talk) 06:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Would Draft:US aerial bombardment of North Korea merit a separate article or be better suited for Korean_War#Aerial_warfare? Thanks for your help, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. It seems that you are not the author of this article. I will post my previous comment on the talk page for the draft. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 03:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people could make some very significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost's 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Member of this project are invited to participate in a requested move discussion that would benefit from this project's knowledge at: Talk:Construction battalion (disambiguation) -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
This is just a note to let members of the project know that the important article Mutiny on the Bounty, on which Brianboulton and I have been working over the past month or so, is now up at peer review here, with a view to going to FAC afterwards. All comments welcome. — Cliftonian (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI, a bunch of military units have been requested at WP:Requested moves to have their disambiguators removed speedily
If this hasn't been already processed, they will show up in a listing at WP:RMTR from this [10] request -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 04:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The consensus of the editors at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_11#Category:Military_facilities_of_the_United_States_in_Germany was to speedy large numbers of category changes from 'military facility'/'military base' to the 2010 recommendation of 'military installation.' The 2010 discussion was at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_12#Military_bases_and_facilities, and there I requested that all the subcategories be moved as well. Some were (eg Category:Military installations by country), and some weren't. To do the remainder, I wrote a series of CfD Speedies. I tried to do this, but @ Armbrust: consistently opposed every CfD Speedy that I've raised, on the basis that some of the subcategories mostly use the base or facility term. But the entire focus of my listings has been to standardize the entire category to the 2010 recommendation of 'installation.' I'm quite frustrated with this, and thus I have raised the matter here. I have invited Armbrust to put his point of view, because I cannot fully understand his reasoning at present. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
How are larger calibers denoted? Is it "40mm grenade" or "40 mm grenade"? Also, is it "100mm gun" or "100 mm gun"? (This is a continuation of a discussion here). Faceless Enemy ( talk) 11:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)#Requested move 17 May 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
OK I managed to add myself to the main list fine, but the Task Force itself not so much... Haha!
-- Luis Santos24 ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The fol SPI case (now closed) highlights the existence of widespread sockpuppet disruption across a range of areas including the Falklands War, Italian related World War II topics, Greco-Italian War, Battle of Crete, Battle of Greece, Battle of Dunkirk, and the Malayan Campaign (especially the Battle of Singapore), and others - pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TimSala/Archive. These accounts have been in use at various different times mostly in the last few years although some date back to 2010, indicating that much of this disruption is now unlikely to be able to be undone. Perhaps more disturbing is the likelihood of there being other accounts (and possibly new ones). The main accounts confirmed (and blocked) are listed below (there were also a number of stale users and IPs that couldn't be confirmed but were likely and have also be tagged but not listed below):
I hesitate to just undo all their edits (where that is even possible) as some appear to be helpful; however, given there is obviously several agendas being advanced here there are definite POV concerns as well. Is anyone interested in assisting to review the contributions of these (now blocked) editors and attempting to deal with any issues that become apparent? Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Also if editors working in these areas could also be on the look out for the reappearance of this editor (under a new name of cse) that would be appreciated. They have a fairly distinct style (as per the SPI) so should be fairly easy to spot unless they change their habits (obviously a distinct risk now due to the evidence presented at the SPI though I'd think). Anotherclown ( talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I think this is most of them. Some are far more affected than others (and some of the edits date back years so have probably been written over / changed over time) - Anyway I will attempt to prioritize them shortly. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Should the Iranian Commanders be listed in the Combat Infobox even though there was no direct combat between US and Iranian forces during the Iranian hostage rescue mission? Mztourist ( talk) 08:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel? for a discussion on which date format should be preferred for articles on US military personnel. — sroc 💬 09:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, is someone in this project skilled in drawing battle time lines? I was thinking that instead of something like this, the progression of both parties could be detailed in separate boxes until they clash. I have a diagram of the battle, but it comes from a copyrighted book, which is the reason why we need to handle it differently. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
An RFC has been posted at Talk:Supercarrier on whether to add a section, Proposed Supercarriers to the article [[[Supercarrier]]]. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 25 May 2015
The above move request may be of interest to this group. W C M email 22:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
...can anyone remind me where the guidance is on the formatting of gun sizes (e.g. how we format a "9 lb gun", a "75 mm gun")? They don't normally make an appearance in my medieval work and I can't find the relevant pages! :) Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to work up a stub on Wilhelm Brandt, who was a tank commander for the Bolivian army during the Chaco War. But looking up that name, I'm finding a Wilhelm Brandt who wrote about armored warfare in the 1920s, and during/before WWII desiged Waffen SS camouflage. I'm unable to suss out whether in between those phases he was mucking around in Bolivia, or whether these are two different people of similar name who both happen to be involved with tanks. Any input? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 18:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for your help! I've been meaning to write an article on that guy for like 5 years since I saw passing mention of the names of a few foreign tank instructors in the Chaco War in an Osprey Book. A few colorful characters drifted down for that one... This project always has some amazing experts emerging for the nichest questions. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 09:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) Does anyone know what I have to do to make the collapsing table collapse rather than open automatically and have to be shut? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 14:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the most famous Argentines in History, having ruled with an iron grip his home country for decades and engaged in several wars, including with the Empire of Brazil. The article is full ready to be nominated for FA, but I need to be sure that the writing is great. Is someone skilled at copy editing willing to take a look at the article? Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are we adding the "th" after "4.5"? It's not as if we are pronouncing it "four point fifth", (which would actually be written as "4.2"). It's silly, needless and doesn't make sense. It should simply be "4.5 generation". As in, between the "fourth (4th) generation" and "fifth (5th) generation", is the "four point five (4.5) generation". Can we drop the "th"? - theWOLFchild 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking to discuss the possible merging of both Queen's Rangers and King's Rangers into Roger's Rangers as a single, comprehensive article. Thoughts? - theWOLFchild 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I've repeatedly reverted a change to the year that the battleship USS Arizona (BB-39) was struck that is being made by new user Tiger-Man101 ( talk), but still he persists. Last time I looked, it was the single edit made by him, so I'm fairly confident that it just tenacious vandalism. I've posted to his talk page without response, so I'll leave it up to an admin to determine the appropriate response.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, back in November 2013, I moved a number of Russian submarine articles with the summary "Name comes before hull or pennant number or disambiguation. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Naming articles about military ships." It appears that such a convention applies chiefly to American and British ships, as those that serve in the Russian and Soviet Navies follow a different naming convention, with the name following the pennant number eg "K-141 Kursk". This convention appears to have been adopted by several other navies as well. Should the moves be kept as they are, or should they be reverted? Has there been a significant oversight on my part? Regards, -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello MilHist, can't finish this worthy stub for a DYK as day job calls. Anyone available to make Operation Sahayogi Haat a DYK? -- Djembayz ( talk) 11:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
An editor misread an article in Newsweek and is now trying to alter the infobox to reflect his contention that the US only had 4,500 troops in Panama and that the only units to participate in the invasion were the units flown in (such as the 82nd). In his version, units already there, such as the 193 Infantry Bde didn't participate. I've provided a considerable amount of reliable sources that refute this, but he has a massive case of WP:IDHT. Conversation is here [12]. Outside observations would be helpful. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
This new website might be of interest to a range of editors - it provides a mapped summary of every Australian Army engagement of the Vietnam War, and is being expanded to cover the Navy and Air Force's engagements. It's a pretty extraordinary resource for anyone with an interest in the nuts and bolts of small unit warfare, and should count as a reliable source given that it's hosted by a university and several members of the team who developed it are academics and/or published authors on this topic. Nick-D ( talk) 11:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Students involved in the Wikipedia Ambassador Program started a very helpful article (IMHO), Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States in 2011. I and others have built on their work since late 2012. The article is now close to A-class, and I hope to submit it to WP:MIL for A-class consideration on 30 JUN 2015 or shortly thereafter.
But first I would love to receive suggestions, feedback, and/or edits from you all. I started a new section on the article's Talk page, What is needed to make this an A-class article?, in which you can offer advice or, if desired, comment on edits you made. On that Talk page I also disclose my potential sources of bias, briefly describe my background, list experts who have reviewed the article and offered suggested changes, and list some of the potential problem areas.
Thank you very much,
Mark D Worthen PsyD 23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to let project members know that the article Mutiny on the Bounty is now at FAC here. All comments are welcome. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, there's a FTCR open at Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Minas Geraes-class battleships/archive1. It's been very kindly re-opened by GamerPro, and I'd appreciate your comments on it. Thank you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know why my laptop shows campaignboxes open and with no "hide" button? Keith-264 ( talk) 16:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
Is this really a military history issue or am I just missing the point? Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 05:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been going through the assessment backlog and found a template problem I don't know how to deal with. First, in the "no task force" area, I'm finding several that have task forces but are still coming up on the no TF list. The common thread in these is that they redirect to another article. for example, Talk:Battle of Girard, Alabama redirects to the talk for the article of Battle of Columbus (1865), and has a TF associated. I suspect that the redirect was created without redirecting the talk page, BUT....I dont know how to fix this. Others: Talk:Middle Tennessee Campaign. Talk:Last Stand Hill. Slowly whittling away on the backlog! ;) auntieruth (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a standard of who is Combatant 1 (left hand side placement) and Combatant 2 (right hand side placement)? Visually speaking, I think we should be consistent, and the battles of the Texas Revolution are disconcerting to me as is.
Mexicans as Combatant 1, on the left side:
Texians as Combatant 1, on the left side:
Any thoughts on this? Also pinging Karanacs — Maile ( talk) 13:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Which war would have affected the Nord department of France in 1616? Mjroots ( talk) 20:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Please can someone have a look at Draft:The Pleime Campaign about a Vietnam War campaign? Way beyond my scope of knowledge, so not sure if it should be accepted or not. Joseph2302 ( talk) 16:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I've gone through all the articles in the "needs task force" section. This one Draft:Battle_of_the_Isefjorden should be soon accepted, I think, but it needs some attention from someone in this project for citations, etc. I'm not informed enough on sources and situation. Would one of you take a look? auntieruth (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Three requested move discussions which concern this project have been started. They can be found at:
BMK ( talk) 17:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The naming and topic of {{ Types of armour}} is under discussion, see Template talk:Types of armour -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 05:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment at the link above (it's self-explanatory as to what it's about). Natural Ratio ( talk) 18:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there a wiki view about adding them to book references? If they are to be added, is there an abbreviated version of the url? Keith-264 ( talk) 09:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been working on MGM-31 Pershing. The article is getting long and the Pershing II section will get longer. Should this be split into three articles and if so, what names would be used? Looking at how other missile articles use designations, I can see that this will not work for Pershing. The problem is that Pershing used MGM-31A to refer to the missile only, where Pershing I was the MGM-31A on the M474 carrier and Pershing IA was the MGM-31A on the M790 launcher. As best I can tell from military documentation, Pershing II never used a designation; MGM-31B is used on some sites and MGM-31C on others, but I can't find any definitive sources. -- 21lima ( talk) 12:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I have some drafts that I think are ready to move. Would someone give these a quick check. I'm sure they need a bit more polish, but moving will attract other editors. If there are specific issues, please discuss on the talk page.
-- 21lima ( talk) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
[13] An editor describing everyone who disagrees with him as "armchair generals", has by his own WP:OR and WP:SYN changed the article on the Falklands War to change the considered view that the British were concerned about the disparity between the small Harrier fleet on two small carriers, compared with the much larger Argentine air force. Instead he is asserting that the British were concerned about the surface threat more than the air threat. He is citing two sentences out of context from one book and claiming the cite supports the change he is making and throwing out the considered analysis of Lawrence Freedman in the Official History of the Falklands War. The actual cite he used stressed the concern over the air threat and the lack of AEW, 180° away from the edit he has made. Would appreciate some input from the learned gentlemen and ladies of MILHIST. W C M email 20:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Al-Awda is under discussion, see talk:The Return (guerrilla organization) -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 05:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Catalan hasn't edited much for several years, so I'd appreciate it if someone would have a look at this article before it hits the Main Page. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking to discuss the possible merging of both Queen's Rangers and King's Rangers into Roger's Rangers as a single, comprehensive article. Thoughts? - theWOLFchild 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of " No man's land"/" No Man's Land" is under discussion, see talk:No man's land -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 04:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
R. V. C. Bodley, an A-Class Military history article, has been at FAC since 6 May, though is in need of further comments. All comments on the nomination are welcome. If you comment on the nomination, regardless of whether you support, oppose or make suggestions, I will review any PR, GAN, FAC or A-Class nomination of your choice. See here. Freikorp ( talk) 11:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
An IP user just jumped in and messed up this page: Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force for Crisis Response
However the hostname of the IP is: gate25-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil
So before I try fighting the USMC (not a good place to be in), shall I try restructuring the page to be on the topic of all of the SPMAGTFCRs, with separate sections inside this page for the different regional ones? Hcobb ( talk) 16:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay? Hcobb ( talk) 19:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate some expert help in finding troop strength figures for the Operation Linda Nchi article - please see this discussion. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! Could anyone have a look at Draft:Mughal-Rajput War (1558–78)? It seems to discuss the 2nd such War, as opposed to the existing article. Is it a good start? Please advise. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
If you don't believe me, will you believe one of the most recognized authorities on the second world war - Gerhard Weinberg?
Nevertheless, there is far too much denigration of the performance of Italy’s forces during the conflict. It was the Germans who insisted on the substitution of their enigma encoding machines that the British were reading for Italian ciphers that had not been cracked.14 As James Sadkovich has shown, the performance of the Italian navy and army was not as poor as much of the contemporary joking and subsequent writings suggest. Missing from most of the literature is the participation of Italian army units in the fighting on the Eastern Front, and the extent to which the heavy casualties those units suffered contributed to the rapid evaporation of support for the fascist system among the Italian public. (Some Myths of World War II, Journal of Military History, 2011)
This means that much of the literature that has needlessly and maliciously maligned the Italian war effort can be safely discarded and thrown in the trash. What we need is a new perspective, a new approach. Wikipedia has to be more sensitive and inclusive to a new crop of more recent authors and historians who are reevaluating the Italian performance. It is no longer enough to say: Well, that's what the majority of writers have written. In this case, the majority of writers in the past were either wrong, in error or biased against the Italian war effort or did not have the complete picture. Certain editors of Wikipedia are intent only on propagating the old stereotyped myths about the Italians. These editors will not or cannot change their views because they themselves have swallowed the half-truths, propaganda and false information, so I appeal to a younger set of editors to actually read and start quoting more recent books and articles, so that the injustices of the past can be rectified regarding the Italian participation in the war.
As wiki editors, we need to do more to redress the balance. While there has been an over-reliance on authors who have written biased and derogatory nonsense of the Italian war effort, there are also too many wiki-editors who have taken it upon themselves to present the Italians in a bad light due to misplaced nationalism, and even, I dare say it, a certain loathing for that country. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 20:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Irondome, you wanted to see evidence of the bias and bad writing in WP articles concerning Italy and the Italians, here's one I recently tagged: take a look at this "beauty" from the Greco-Italian War article:
The politically degenerate framework, as in the parallel case of Nazi Germany, had in the meantime remunerated subservience, servility, servile quality and sycophancy. vague Past that, all types of political association had been diminished to close to a veneer: delegate bodies exclusively in outward appearance, yet in actuality close to vehicles of promulgation and recognition of the pioneer. further explanation needed The despot had been told, over and again, that he was trustworthy; and he accepted the blandishments. [1] According to Kershaw, when things started unravelling in Italy's war effort, the Italian political elites did not accept their share of the responsibility for the failures, although they were eager to take credit for the successes, when things were going well. vague Kershaw concludes that the stupidity of Mussolini's choice reflected the despot's extreme individual inadequacies. At the same time it was additionally the idiocy of a political framework. [2] clarification needed
To his credit, Dr K deleted this crap yesterday. This is exactly what I am talking about. However, many other anti-Italian passages are not so obvious as the above. While they are careful to quote the right authors, use the "right" tone, they use weasel words, cherry-picking, adding negative connotations and ambiguous wording, selective writing and a certain "twist" that while, on the surface, appear legitimate, but when you dig deeper, have changed the original intent or meaning of the author. In the coming weeks, I will single out such passages and paste them here for others to see and judge. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 20:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Irondome, I think you might have the wrong guy here. I've never made any contributions to the Counterattack at Arras or Siege of Calais unless someone had got into my account and pretended to be me! As for the Italian invasion of France in 1940, I feel that overall, my contributions there have actually improved the article tremendously. I took the position that contrary to how some authors have decided to view it, the Italian campaign cannot be judged too harshly if the Italian army only had 3 or at most, 4 days of fighting in very difficult terrain before the armistice. I thought that the way the article was originally written was too censorious and critical of the Italian invasion of France. Again, Anglo authors especially appear very good at bringing up all the defects and negatives of the campaign, when more could have been done to highlight some of the positive gains as well, such as the taking of Menton, and over-coming several French fortifications and progress through mountain passes (and all in just a few days of fighting with bridges destroyed and roads mined).
As for your assertion that I hold a certain "animus" against Greek contributions, far from it! I admire the Greeks for the strong resistance against the Italian invading army. At the time, most people and leaders didn't give Greece much of a chance against the Italians, for they were truly the underdog. Due to a gross underestimation of the Greek fighting spirit, the Italians got a big surprise and had to retreat and regroup in Albania. That's fine. But where I draw the line is where our Greek friends will cherry-pick quotes to make the Italians look worse than they really were. I still maintain, and so do several more recent historians, that while the Italians may have failed to dislodge the Greeks in several offensives, they did not lose the war. Ultimately they emerged victorious, though it was a qualified victory, one with reservations. One could also say that the Greeks, as their general Papagos, admitted - simply couldn't "break the Italians" - meaning, they simply could not defeat them, try as they might.
As the eminent historian Gerhard Weinberg in frustration declared, there has been far too much denigration of the Italian military in WW2, criticism that is unwarranted and unfair. It does appear to me with glaring clarity that Italian failures are highlighted while Italian successes are either ignored or downplayed in many of the Wiki articles. There are authors out there who maintain that the quality of Italian leadership was on par with other armies in WW2; that the quality of Italian troops, Navy and Air force, were on par on even better than other armies in WW2. What is mistaken for incompetence or failure or negligence was often a lack of resources and materials to do the job as effectively as for example, the Americans or Germans could do with their abundance of war material. Italy simply lacked the resources to conduct a war that lasted so long. It could, at best, conduct a 6 month war - how it managed to stay in the fight for 3 and a half years, is something a PhD history student should do a thesis on as we would all like to know the answers to that question.
Sturvogel wrote that - Line Italian infantry units were often best characterized as the unwilling led by the incompetent so it was no wonder that they often collapsed quickly in the face of British and Commonwealth attacks.
This is precisely the sort of attitude and writing that I am trying to correct. If Sturvogel actually believes this type of fallacy, then it isn't hard to see that when he writes about the Italian army, this attitude or what I call, repeating a mantra or blind ideology, will be reflected in his writing. Who maintained this? A dozen or so Anglo or American or German armchair historians? Ask yourself the questions: Were they unwilling? Did they often collapse quickly?" Because so and so said so? If we already know (as Gerhard Weinberg laments) that much war historiography about the Italians is anti-Italian and needlessly derogatory, then we have to take such statements with a large grain of skepticism. I read somewhere that one British pilot in Malta was so fed up with newspaper reporters writing back home such misinformation as: the sight of one spitfire was enough to scare off a squadron of Italian planes, that he punched the reporter in the face. To that British pilot, the Italians were not a pushover at all.
AnnalesSchool ( talk) 19:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, just about every soldier who ever fought, has thought that his commanders and superiors were incompetent, that the leadership didn't know what they were doing, and that they weren't given enough weaponry and materials to do the job properly. With all due respect to your cousins, they could only see the war from a micro point of view. Do you think that a German soldier retreating before the Russians day after day all across the Ukraine, Latvia or Poland, didn't share the same sentiments as your cousins and have doubts about it all and start to view the war as ludicrous? The Italians did have their victories on a small scale, but when Germany was sinking, so too would all its axis partners. The Hungarians, the Bulgarians, Romanians, half the population of the Ukraine, and the Baltic States, as well as Slovakia and half of Europe, including Italy, all pinned their hopes on the Germans. Only Spain and a couple of others, wisely refrained from taking sides. But when it became obvious that the Germans couldn't win, well .... that's another story! AnnalesSchool ( talk) 22:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Really? are you an expert? How do you know? Then can I suggest you go on the Axis History Forum and explain your reasons to carlodinechi succinctly and accurately. But be warned: he doesn't tolerate fools lightly.
You wrote: to do impartial history you need to get the list of defeats and compare the two lists.
Can I suggest you get to writing that list of defeats and post them on the forum. And while you're at it, a list of Allied defeats as well. It should be fun comparing them. The nation who has the biggest list of victories and the shortest list of defeats wins the prize! A day with David Irwing on one of his Hitler Bunker tours!!!
Your idea of comparing lists smacks of a high school approach to history Rjensen. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Irondome, again you have misjudged me. I didn't write it - it was someone called --58.178.80.30 (talk) who left it on my Talk Page. Did you see above the recent example of a bad piece of anti-Italian writing I tagged. Well I will copy and paste it now for you below:
Irondome, you wanted to see evidence of the bias and bad writing in WP articles concerning Italy and the Italians, here's one I recently tagged: take a look at this "beauty" from the Greco-Italian War article:
The politically degenerate framework, as in the parallel case of Nazi Germany, had in the meantime remunerated subservience, servility, servile quality and sycophancy. vague Past that, all types of political association had been diminished to close to a veneer: delegate bodies exclusively in outward appearance, yet in actuality close to vehicles of promulgation and recognition of the pioneer. further explanation needed The despot had been told, over and again, that he was trustworthy; and he accepted the blandishments. [1] According to Kershaw, when things started unravelling in Italy's war effort, the Italian political elites did not accept their share of the responsibility for the failures, although they were eager to take credit for the successes, when things were going well. vague Kershaw concludes that the stupidity of Mussolini's choice reflected the despot's extreme individual inadequacies. At the same time it was additionally the idiocy of a political framework. [2] clarification needed
To his credit, Dr K deleted this crap yesterday. This is exactly what I am talking about. However, many other anti-Italian passages are not so obvious as the above. While they are careful to quote the right authors, use the "right" tone, they use weasel words, cherry-picking, adding negative connotations and ambiguous wording, selective writing and a certain "twist" that while, on the surface, appear legitimate, but when you dig deeper, have changed the original intent or meaning of the author. In the coming weeks, I will single out such passages and paste them here for others to see and judge. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 20:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
References
How many times to we need to rehash this tiresome POV pushing? I agree that this is a classic case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it and the associated POV-pushing editing has reached a point where a topic ban (or indefinite-duration block) would be well and truly justified. This discussion, for instance, appears to be a continuation of the nonsense at Talk:Military history of Greece during World War II#The Italian attack on Greece wasn't a failure which started with AnnalesSchool once again claiming that the Italian invasion of Greece was somehow a great success, with the Germans merely providing "timely ... assistance". We've been here before, it was pointed out that this flies in the face of history, but yet AnnalesSchool keeps pushing this POV. Abusive stuff like this is entirely unacceptable, but is also standard for AnnalesSchool. Enough is enough. Nick-D ( talk) 10:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Dr K, it is not POV pushing. I never said that the Greco-Italian war was a great success story for the Italians - I do believe that it wasn't the great "failure" that editors (who often seem to have Greek non-de-plumes strangely enough) that is being portrayed and pushed down our throats.
Now, if an eminent historian like Gerhard Weinberg believes there has been far too much denigration of the Italian war effort, then perhaps we as editors should listen and not continue to bury our heads in the sand. If you don't believe me, will you believe and listen to him, and others like Sadkovich and Stockings and O'Hara and others. I simply want to redress the imbalance. If that is POV pushing, then I plead guilty! But I am not POV pushing. Time and time again I try to introduce authors who are saying: well hang on a minute, the Italians were not as bad as that - and nearly every time my edits have been reverted for all sorts of reasons, or often, no reason at all. Recently my edits have been reverted by Alexikou and Constantine (or Cpslikas as he seems to be an editor with two names or accounts). Time and time again, when I try to make the language more neutral, more academic and less derogatory towards the Italians, my edits are reverted. Time and time again when I tag sentences as lacking in citation, vague, ambiguous or peacocking, etc, these edits get reverted too. When I try to discuss things on the Talk page, no compromise is reached, or I am simply ignored. It seems as if a clique of editors simply don't want these sacro-sanct articles changed, even to a word! They appear to think they own the articles, when it is clear they have no proprietary rights to them at all.
AnnalesSchool (
talk) 11:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
********************
Another pro-Italian attempt[edit source] The specific edit 1 is the epitomy of pov, "the Greeks were so hard pressed to hold the line against this latest Italian onslaught that General Pagagos "decided not to launch any further large-scale operations in Albania without Yugoslav assistance.". Not to mention that its completely out of the context of the primavera offensive, which, by the way, was another clear Greek victory. ("in the end the Tepelene offensive was succesfuully repulsed by the Greeks").Alexikoua (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
For instance the claim that the Greek side was "running low on reserves of men and war material." is a result of the fact that "by early March German intentions have became increasingly apparent. The danger of the German thrust... was serious ". I'm afraid that the editor who's is eager to add about the Greek weakness intentionally (and systematically) ignores the German threat in the Balkan theatre of operations in order to overemphasize the supposed Italian military supremacy. Thus, I won't object to present the full picture on each paragraph.Alexikoua (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
THE TWO REFERENCES IN QUESTION
Stockings and Hancock[edit source] According to Stockings and Hancock, by the first week of March, "the General Greek staff were facing a number of serious problems." Not only was the conflict intensifying with the Italians, but they were running low on reserves of men and war material. The Italians presented what they called, an "existential threat" that continued to pin down the bulk of the Greek Army[1]
However, the Greeks were so hard pressed to hold the line against this latest Italian onslaught that General Pagagos "decided not to launch any further large-scale operations in Albania without Yugoslav assistance."[2]
What exactly is wrong with the above? Can you explain your objections more clearly Alexikoua and propose some sort of solution?AnnalesSchool (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
*************
The above, taken from the Talk Page of the Greco-Italian War article, is a good example of the continual obfuscation I experience when trying to add more balance and deeper insight to the articles dealing with Italy.
AnnalesSchool (
talk) 13:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
published an article in the Journal of Military History, stating publicly that
"there is far too much denigration of the performance of Italy’s forces during the conflict. It was the Germans who insisted on the substitution of their enigma encoding machines that the British were reading for Italian ciphers that had not been cracked. As James Sadkovich has shown, the performance of the Italian navy and army was not as poor as much of the contemporary joking and subsequent writings suggest. Missing from most of the literature is the participation of Italian army units in the fighting on the Eastern Front, and the extent to which the heavy casualties those units suffered contributed to the rapid evaporation of support for the fascist system among the Italian public"
then we as wiki war history editors should actually stand up and listen.
The Italian invasion of France article has improved a lot, due to my urging and pointing out its many defects. I challenged you to do a better, more comprehensive job, and by and large, you did. But I still think that your "analysis" of the many defects and faults of the invading Italian army, is over-kill, while at the same time, the successes of the campaign are only lightly touched upon or given curt attention. I think you have taken Sica and others like him on board too much. ie. How about their socks? Were they the right length or thickness?
However, I did like that final assessment by General Emilio Faldella:
"At the front, near the border, the mission of the French forts was to delay the Italian army from reaching the line of defense, made up of steel and concrete fortifications. . . Our infantry had to advance in the open against well-protected troops through a field under French artillery fire. . . And all this was to happen in three to four days. In these conditions, greater Italian manpower has no advantage. . . It would be a mistake to say that a battle was fought in the western Alps; what took place were only preliminary actions, technically called 'making contact'. It is not possible to speak in terms of victory or defeat. . .[136]"
because it supports my contention that while the Italian attack on France was not a glaring victory, neither was it a failed invasion or defeat. However, the Italians did make political and strategic capital out of it, with some nice armistice concessions from the French, so from that point of view, it hardly "failed". AnnalesSchool ( talk) 21:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It is really unfair that I should be singled out for such abuse and mistreatment as this. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 23:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, this will be the last I will say on the subject. In future, I will try to work more cooperatively and sensitively with my fellow co-editors. I do apologize sincerely for any offense or injury I may have given. In future, I will put my money where my mouth is, and do less criticizing of others and more research in producing reliable sources that can add greater depth of knowledge to the article. AnnalesSchool ( talk) 11:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Cplakidas/Constantine, I have already apologized if I had stepped on people's toes and was perhaps too forthright and direct and have promised to turn over a new leaf and take TomStar81's advice and in the coming months produce reliable sources that I hope will balance out many of the articles dealing with the Italian involvement in North Africa, the Balkans, Greece and France. Happily there is a new generation of historians who are reevaluating Italy's performance in a more positive light. I will bring these authors and what they have to say to light for other editors to debate and ponder over and reach a new consensus. I now realise that only by "concensus" can we go forward, so in that respect, I have learnt my lesson. I will be more respectful and patient. But I am here for the long haul and so I say to you Cplakidas/Constantine, and to others, let's bury the hatchet and move forward together to improve the articles because if history is anything, it is not static but continually evolving as new research and investigations shed light on new information and what we once thought was Truth with a capital T, has been found to be not as true as we once believed.
AnnalesSchool (
talk) 11:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I'm in the process of adding and re-writing information on the article, and I have a question with the usage of dates of the battle. The given battle dates is apparently the O.S. dating, while the dates given from a few of the sources online gives the apparent N.S. dating: Historic Cities of the Americas p. 629, Wars of the Americas p. 117, Almanac of American Military History p. 54. Do I change the dates, or do something else? Thanks for reading! LeftAire ( talk) 21:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
A {{ merge to}} tag has been posted to the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, suggesting a merger of that article into the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station article. If anyone is interested in weighing-in, please see Talk:Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station#Cheyenne Mountain Complex merge discussion. (I am also posting this on the Cold War and Aviation project talk pages, since they may have an interest in this discussion, too). Thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Gday. The issue of this website being added as an external link recently came up at the North African Campaign article and the there discussion is ongoing. However, this aside there seems to be a wider issue as from a quick search I can see that Commandosupremo [3] has actually been used in at least 16 of our articles as a source (including many references which link to forum discussions on the website, not articles - a list of Wikipedia articles including the reference is here [4]). An example is at Biscari massacre where the forum post at http://www.comandosupremo.com/forums/topic/1784-historian-uncovers-new-details-on-sicily-massacre/ is used as a reference. This seems fairly concerning to me as I can't possibly see how it would qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS. That said I'm interested in other editors opinions on this issue, including possible solutions. I'm leaning towards excising all links to the site (or at least just the references to forum posts). Anotherclown ( talk) 01:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI - I've gone through and removed these now, replacing the references with citations to books etc where I could find replacements in WP:RS. Anotherclown ( talk) 13:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Input from persons familiar with the subject matter would be welcome at Talk:Armenian_Genocide#File:Armenian_Genocide_Map-en.svg_to_appear_as_POTD; there is currently a concern that an image scheduled to feature on the main page for the 100th anniversary of the genocide is not accurate, and I am not familiar enough with the matter to make a decision on my own. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please take a moment of your time to throw in an oppose or support vote. Thanks in advance. :) Jonas Vinther • ( speak to me!) 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Just in passing I came across Ranks and insignia of NATO air forces enlisted (and similar), now to my English viewpoint it doesnt actually make any sense as a title and is what I think of as the American "Enlisted" a common name in NATO for other ranks. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile "enlisted" does not "compute" in the NATO context of the article. "Other ranks" is or was common in the British context and fits the old "nine officers and 200 men" one finds in some historical accounts. To be "other" one first has to understand it excludes the "officers" of any NATO military organization. If you look at the "ranks" covered you will see those other than U.S. forces (and if you split hairs they are noncoms) have titles far from the "enlisted" concept everyone is talking about above: Canada—Chief Warrant Officer, Belgium—Adjudant-Major, Bulgaria—Офицерски кандидат (Officer candidate?), France—Major. The title requires adjustment. Palmeira ( talk) 15:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, looking for a little research help on the above article. I have seen several references around the net that the division was based in Lancashire, where it was Western Command's training formation. However, I have not been able to tie down where exactly. I believe it may have been the training grounds at Altcar, where Western Command's weapon training school was located yet I have nothing solid or sourcable.
I have used the net and GoogleBooks to look up every regiment that was associated with the division without any luck. I have a few other sites to check, but I am not holding my breath to be honest (since there is little found by searching for the division itself). So if anyone has a source or knows where to look it would be much appreciated. Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I've upgraded HNoMS Otra (1939) to start class, as it was clearly not a stub. would an independant editor assess it against the B-class criteria please? Mjroots ( talk) 21:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The remains of Lancaster B III JA914 are displayed at the German Museum of Technology. Where was this aircraft built? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone please help me find info about an obituary in a local newspaper at Cape Cod? Regarding the following obituary of James Hamilton Kean (a.k.a. Jim Kean and James H. Kean) I would like to know:
I am trying to cite the following from the obituary (of an unnamed local newspaper at Cape Cod: "He personally supervised the evacuation of approximate 1000 Americans and several thousand Vietnamese in advance of approaching North Vietnamese force". If there are other sources, please say so. -- 20yardsaway ( talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have a better image for this TFA than File:SM UD 3 port.jpg? That's too grainy. Images are helpful for pulling in Main Page readers. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a question at TFAR on how best to mark V-E day. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Dank: The Mark Oliphant article might be a good candidate due to his work with the Manhattan Project. It's currently under review as a Featured Article candidate. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 15:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Fokker Scourge the relevance of the infobox added to the article has been questioned, does anyone know of a better one? thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding THC Texas Rising that has some of us upgrading the Texas Revolution article, here's from the from the History Channel: Preview of Texas Rising. FYI, Mdennis (WMF) — Maile ( talk) 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Germany uses a similar B-checklist as WP:MILHIST. When MILHIST-members assess a Germany-related article anyway, please consider adding a copy of the checklist to the Germany banner template as well. The criteria are similar enough (in fact MILHIST requirements are a bit stricter), and such assessments can be done by any interested Wikipedian - this would help to avoid unnecessary backlogs. I try to fill out both banners anyway - being in both projects :). Many thanks for your help. GermanJoe ( talk) 12:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Cambodian Civil War is currently an A Class article belonging to your project but it is lacking in citations in a number of areas. It seems has fallen into some disrepair over the years. Perhaps someone here could go through it and bring it back up to standard? I've done what little I could. 49.197.25.169 ( talk) 20:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Input would be welcome. Srnec ( talk) 22:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
An IP editor is attempting to insert content using user generated content sources at the article Xiong Yan (dissident). I am coming up to the third revision rule and need others to assist.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 02:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015
As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:
It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au
We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry ( talk) 05:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Up for deletion on the basis that the articles string together battles to call them a war without sources naming the group of battles as a war. Dougweller ( talk) 09:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) One of out intrepid bilingual editors is transferring data from [6] the German page but we've hit a snag. Neither of us know how to move the map coords from the German to the English page. It looks easy but isn't, if anyone knows how I'd be grateful for advice. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The military history article LIM-49 Nike Zeus is undergoing a FA candidacy and it looks like it could use some more feedback. Thank you. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
In the course of a bit of work involving Cousinot's Chronique de la Pucelle I happened on the wikipage for the book itself. This is sound but at some point in 2013, an IP editor added a paragraph apparently refering to a fantastical tale included by Cousinot. Intrigued (it is Munchhausen-esque), I tried to locate it in the online edition with no result. I suspect it is an unspotted hoax. I've put a little more on the talk page but would welcome hoax-spotters to take a look Monstrelet ( talk) 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about using hyphens in the names of Nazi SS units and organizations at WT:Manual of Style#Hyphen for SS units and organizations. Feel free to offer your opinions on this issue.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I have created a horizontal version of the rather lengthy Template:Ancient Rome military sidebar, at Template:Ancient Rome military. All the best, Simon Burchell ( talk) 10:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, do any of our members have access to this book? If so, would they be willing to check out the following pages (gleaned from GoogleBooos and Amazon) and update the 70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) accordingly?
On pp. 144, 157, and 249, Slim mentions the division. On p.292 he mentions being angered at something being allocated to Wingate, is this relevant to the division? Between pp.269-275, the fighting at Taung Bazar is recounted. Is this fighting during May 1943, and is there any mention of the role of the British 23rd Infantry Brigade?
Thank you EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 09:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The current article for proxy war appears to have a bad definition of proxy war. In addition, the list of examples seems unnecessary to me. It would make more sense to me to simply provide a link to List of proxy wars. Notable proxy wars could be listed under the See Also section. Because of these two issues, I've created a draft for it. You can see it here. Could I get some feedback on it? Compassionate727 ( talk) 16:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Military, you might find Draft:Henry Bachtold interesting. Do tell me about whether you think the draft is suitable for inclusion by pinging me or placing a talkback on my talk page. Thanks! Darylgolden( talk) Ping when replying 14:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
In the last 24 hours, material has been added to the article that has been opposed by several editors (myself included). The war is just before 3RR, and little is being discussed on the talkpage. Intervention before 3RR? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 19:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
G'day, @ WP:MILHIST coordinators: (and any other admins) Battle of Buna–Gona was recently overwritten by Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona with this edit: [7] This was done as a copy-paste move due to the existence of the article within articlespace. Could one of our resident admins please take a look and see if a histmerge could be undertaken in order to provide the appropriate attribution in the article's history log? Thanks in advance. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 21:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI I have started a merge proposal at Australian landing ship medium Clive Steele (AV 1356). Anotherclown ( talk) 11:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear military experts: Here's an old draft that will shortly be deleted unless someone takes and interest in it. Is this something that should be kept and improved? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
If you are interested in Napoleonic Wars, there is a new featured article in fr.wiki concerning its economical aspects.
Rifford ( talk) 23:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I just need to point out that references are needed for notable enlistments (such as Lee Sungmin of Super Junior) in the Conscription in South Korea page.
Thanks!
Tibbydibby ( talk) 19:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been removing flags from infoboxes on military weapons articles for several months now. Sometimes I also see them in "See also" sections, and I remove them from there also. Today, I ran into an odd style in the See also section of a Taiwanese article, per this diff. It looks like this:
I removed the flags and colorbox, but they came back again. :( The same user has also added or modified several other articles on Taiwanese weapons to have flags in the See also section, but some of the flags predate the IP's activities, but it may be the same person who originally added them. I haven't had time to troll the article histories yet to find out.
I've been operating under the assumption that using flags in See also sections isn't recommended by the project, but I wanted to confirm this before I begin a crusade of stripping these flags out wholesale. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the recent addition of some important information that corrects certain previously held erroneous views in relation to the self-firing "drip rifle" (or "pop off rifle") at Anzac Cove, etc., are there particular, relevant additions and embellishments that need to be made to William Scurry -- or does there need to be, also, in addition to the article on William Scurry, an independent article on the "drip rifle"? 220.239.181.181 ( talk) 08:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Just want to raise if it makes sense to put an infobox for military helmets such as the M1 and the PASGT? Thinking of a way to make it neat. Ominae ( talk) 14:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The author of National Association of Army Nurses of the Civil War would like a review of that article by editors familiar with the American Civil War. Roches ( talk) 20:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Pursuant to the previous discussion that ended in no consensus, I've started an RfC at the article titles policy page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi to all,
I was looking at No Gun Ri Massacre, and I was wondering if anyone -- preferably uninvolved in the article -- would be interested in conducting a peer review on it. It has been the site of some pretty intense disputes, particularly concerning some of the sources used, but the dust seems to have settled now. Still, it would be good to get a fresh perspective.
Thanks!
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 23:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There are conflicting statements as to which British division(s) invaded Somalia during World War II. We will focus specifically on Mogadishu on this first part. As of now statements are spilt into three groups: solely Nigerians, a combination of West African, East African, and South African troops, and soley South Africans, the last one seems the most likely to me since they too invaded the former British Somaliland. However, I found a YouTube video (hear me out first since it's from British Pathè) that states that Australian troops where the first to enter. Anyways, the invasion of Somalia as whole seems to have been mainly South Africans and Indians. This is all quite confusing. I would greatly appreciate the help of individuals with knowledge of World War II. AcidSnow ( talk) 22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The relevant volume of the British official history is online here. It states that the 23rd Nigerian Brigade captured Mogadishu unopposed. There were virtually no Australian forces in this theatre (other than one or two RAN warships when the Italians invaded British East Africa, and a tiny number of advisers to Ethiopia). Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Moyse-Bartlett's history of the King's African Rifles (Volume 2 pp 512–513) says that a platoon of C Coy 1/3 KAR was with the lead elements of the Nigerian Brigade when they reached the outskirts of Mog, but a patrol of infantry and armoured cars found the town undefended. Stapleton's Military History of Africa (Vol 1 p 212) says Mogadishu was captured by the motorised Nigerian brigade of the 11th African Division. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 02:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
In response to recent edits and questions on the Talk:Battle of the Alamo, a framework is being laid down by Karanacs for a detailed examination of the article's current state. The end goal is to get it up to the standard of Texas Revolution. Although the article achieved FA status in 2009, several thousand edits have happened since then. — Maile ( talk) 19:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The article proxy war recently was overhauled. Due to the significant changes, I think the article should be reevaluated to see if it fits into a different class now. If somebody could take care of that, I would appreciate it. Compassionate727 ( talk) 13:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk: Bosnian War about the number of casualties that UNPROFOR suffered. There seems to be some disagreement between sources, with some stating almost twice the number specified on the UN website. Input would be welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has started regarding the appropriate start date of the Somali Civil War to note in the article's infobox. Wider community input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there anyone here who is familiar with cryptography? Marian Rejewski is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Marian Rejewski/archive1, and is close to a save, but we need help (see comments on the FAR). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to know if there are any guidelines on which infobox ( Template:Infobox weapon or Template:Infobox automobile) should be used for military trucks. I've noticed another editor asked the same question before on Template talk:Infobox weapon, without answer.— Cloverleaf II ( talk) 14:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
A summary of one of Milhist's Featured Articles will appear on the Main Page soon. The WP:FAC nominator (a former Milhist coord) hasn't edited in years, so I'm hoping someone else will have a look. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out that anyone would like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if someone could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Citadel48 keeps disrupting Bijeljina massacre (an A-Class article) and stubbornly refuses to understand what is problematic with his/her edits . I've run out of patience and really don't feel like getting to an edit war with an inexperienced user. Someone take over from here. 23 editor ( talk) 19:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
User:23 editor has very strong views on what needs and does not need to be included. With views that strong, he or she must consider self publishing or increase their level of tolerance towards alternative views on what is important and relevant. The most disappointing is the lack of basic competence resulting in challenging CNN and BBC type sources on alleged copyright infringement grounds. The user should get basic training in concepts such as fair use doctrine and should not be given editorial functions. Editorial rights are a responsibility that requires a level of maturity. tolerance and competence that seem to be lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Colleagues, I thought I might want to bring to your attention: Wikipedia:McFarland. In coordination with the Wikipedia Library, publishers McFarland are offering PDFs of up to five books per editor who signs up. There are quite a few Military History books, so I thought you all might want some free resources. :) A list of their Military History books is here. Miyagawa ( talk) 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody,
I'm looking for some editors who might willing to leave their sentiment and opinion to following case: User: Pensiveneko is engaging in mutiple webpages, with the commonly tenor to remove all the iffy things that might not fit his POV within a week. See: 1 (I will remove Bias / Opinion) 2, 3, 4.
The User is name-calling serious and reputable publications of scholars into an inappropriate magnitude, because of this, I felt responsible to report his behavior to an Administrator: Nick-D See our conversation: 1
I appreciate and welcome further contributions. Thank you. Regards LikePancakes ( talk) 12:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
For Lists, most WikiProjects have no quality assessment classifications between List-class and FL-class. MILHIST is exceptional in that CL, BL and AL are all provided - but there is no class between BL and AL, equivalent to GA (see WP:MHA#SCALE). There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List, which would fit into that gap. Please add your comments there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I have created stubs on 2 Scottish politicians who also appear to have been generals in the British Army. Can anyone help improve the military side of these articles?
Any expansion would be great. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Asking for assistance with the article 2007 Shinwar shooting. While POV issues have been raised regarding it in the past, it gives heavy weight the the allegations of war crimes by United States Marines, and gives very little weight to the court of inquiry which cleared the Marines of wrong doing. I have added links to the current Military Times series being published about the event. I hope we can collaborate to improve the article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I am bemused to see that an editor whose user page advertises themselves as a former member of the US Army is arguing that more weight should be given to internal inquiry by a branch of the US armed services. I suggest that this article would benefit from the scrutiny of editors whose idea of NPOV doesn't derive from service with the military forces of either the Taliban or the United States. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please come participate in the discussion on changing Romanization in the Japan-related manual of style. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Melee has recently been nominated of moving Talk:Melee#Requested move 9 March 2015 and then for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee). There is now a debate over whether is appropriate to include the maintenance {{ coatrack}} in the article Melee. More participation in the debate on talk:Melee might help build a consensus. Of course as nothing is ever a battle on Wikipedia no one expects there to be melee. -- PBS ( talk) 17:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
A RfC has been opened at Talk:1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla regarding whether the article should include a list of the names of the Yugoslav National Army soldiers killed. Feel free to chime in. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 11:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I am working on a biography of an officer of the Royal Scots Army (1660–1707), who from 1689–92 was a captain in the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot.
So far as I can see, there is no Category:Royal Scots Army personnel nor any appropriate regimental sub-cat of Category:Scottish soldiers. Any suggestions on how to categorise this phase of his career?
This man later served in the post-1707 British Army, which I have no prob categorising, but I am stuck on his earlier Scottish service. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've just uploaded some high-quality images of World War One objects from York Museums Trusts collections as part of the Yorkshire Network GLAMwiki Project. I hope you find them useful! Let me know if there's anything else I might be able to help with. Cheers, PatHadley ( talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't that Sherlock Holmes? -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 23:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Norman Dike is primarily known as "Foxhole Norman" to viewers of the HBO series and readers of the associated books ( Stephen Ambrose et. al.). While trying to broaden the article, I came upon two interesting items. In his published biography, Clancy Lyall relates that Dike did not panic, but acted erratically because he had been wounded. A blog (I know) quotes Brown University Alumni Monthly dated April 1947 as follows:
The Lyall book is in Google Books; few of the alumni monthlies are on line and I could not find April 1947. If anyone has access to the alumni pubs, please check for the paragraph in question. Thanks.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please disregard the request above. I stumbled around until I broke the code on the page numbering for the magazine. However, I would appreciate it if one one or more here will look at the way I've integrated the information more favorable to Dike. It does strike me that he could have been the source of the information in the alumni monthly; if so, he didn't paint a favorable picture of himself to counter other publications because it was years too early. There's still Lyall's account to consider.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I'd appreciate if you could comment (either in support or against) on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rivadavia-class battleship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
As I've got the "show article quality" preference set, I was a little surprised to that the List of shipwrecks in September 1942 shows as Start class instead of List class. This is apparrently due to a Milhist assessment. Any reason that all B class parameters are not met? IMHO, they are. Mjroots ( talk) 18:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
See my comments on this AfC submission. Do you agree? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, Soviet aviator's headgear, but I'm guessing someone knows more than that. - Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Before I start any effort towards creating an article, I would like others to look at the research I have found thus far for Colonel Melvin Garten, U.S. Army (ret.) who recently died (Village Voice source). Potential subject received some coverage in this book, David H. Hackworth; Julie Sherman (15 April 1990). About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior. Simon and Schuster. p. 529. ISBN 978-0-671-69534-7., and in-depth coverage in this book, Seymour Brody (2004). Jewish Heroes & Heroines of America: 151 True Stories of Jewish American Heroism. Frederick Fell Publishers. pp. 260–261. ISBN 978-0-88391-026-9. (same author later wrote piece about the potential subject in a pdf published by Florida Atlantic University). Potential subject was also a subject of an article published by the Oregonian in 2012, and another article published by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in 1953. While the potential subject appears to pass WP:ANYBIO & WP:GNG, potential falls short of WP:SOLDIER only being awarded one second-tier valor medal, and not being a flag/general officer. It can be argued that as a lieutenant colonel whose unit's actions were given significant coverage during Vietnam, that the subject does meet SOLDIER's criteria about "commanded a substantial body of troops in combat" or "played an important roll in a significant military event" Given that there will likely be WP:NOTMEMORIAL objections, should this article be written?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I have opened an RFC at Talk:2015 Kumanovo shootings in regards to the article name. Any thoughts from editors would be greatly appreciated. XavierGreen ( talk) 23:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Labuan/archive1 (my nomination) has been open for just on three weeks, and would benefit from additional reviewers - with negative or positive comments. Thanks Nick-D ( talk) 04:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
During WW 2 Admiral Gerald Charles Dickens should have mentioned the Norwegian merchant fleet and its importance for carrying supplies to GB, is there any one can give me a reference to this... Breg -- Pmt ( talk) 13:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There's a on-going dispute over the result's nature of the Battle of Arsuf, if someone else wish to participate. Aozyk ( talk) 23:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan ( talk) 18:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
All comments and suggestions are welcome here. Thank you for your time in advance. Borsoka ( talk) 03:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Should Jabal Shammar be listed as a Central Powers co-belligerent during World War I?
See
Template_talk:World_War_I_infobox#RfC_(14_April_2015). —
Srnec (
talk) 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi to all,
Once more, I am requesting a review of No Gun Ri Massacre, in part due to the intense feuding and debate over sources that has transpired on that page. If anyone were to volunteer, I would be very grateful.
Thanks,
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I'm a communications guy at Lockheed Martin, and I just wanted to bring your attention to a small error about Lockheed Martin's SEWIP program (AN/SLQ-32C(V)6) for the Littoral Combat Ship on AN/SLQ-32_Electronic_Warfare_Suite#Future. The system used on USS Freedom (LCS-1) is a scaled version of Block 2, but it is not Block 3, which is not in production yet. The reference linked in the article can easily be misread to think it is the Block 3 system, but the contract for SEWIP Block 3 (which will be a future upgrade to Lockheed Martin's AN/SLQ-32C(V)6) was only just awarded. I would edit it myself, but I don't think you'd want a corporate guy mucking about in your WikiProject, which is hugely impressive in scope, btw. ( GLesLM ( talk) 13:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC))
I'd like to get some sunlight over at melee. The article's notability is dubious. It seems to be more of a prose list of times people in history have used the word "melee", more than an article on a coherent military topic. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 15:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Rape during the Rwandan Genocide has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 06:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on Draft:Battle of the Isefjorden? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
WPMILHIST|class=draft}}
--
65.94.43.89 (
talk) 05:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Talk pages for ship indices are routinely tagged with {{WPMILHIST|class=DAB}}
. This may give the impression that the articles are disambiguation pages. But they're not.
WP:NOTDAB states, in bold, a set index article is not a disambiguation page. Do we need a parameter class=setindex
?
Stanning (
talk) 13:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Is CUES notable enough to warrant an article given that PRC and USA are now using it?
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2715
Hcobb ( talk) 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Budding off from U.S.–Soviet Incidents at Sea agreement for now. Hcobb ( talk) 12:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I'm still working on a draft article about Military Imposters (what Americans call "Stolen Valor"), which I intend to go live with about June or so. In preparation for this, I was scouring around wikipedia to find related articles and information, and came across the following biographical ones. These all appear to be individuals accused or convicted of lying about military service, but there is nothing else notable about these people that I can see. And according to WP:PERP, they don't qualify because some have never been convicted of crimes and others have had no coverage in any reliable works since their convictions. Therefore I am trying to delete them. A previous attempt was made with PROD by other editors but the admins rejected those because they are supposed to be "uncontroversial" deletions, so looks like we have to do this the hard way. I only nominated two for AFD because I can't keep track of so many at the moment. Feel free to comment on deletion discussions or nominate the others if you can take care of monitoring them (please mark them here so there won't be overlap. Thanks, Legitimus ( talk) 20:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There's also this list page which seems questionable.
Can someone take a look at this orphaned article? Is it worthy of its own article or can it be deleted/redirected somewhere? Could someone more knowledgeable please take a look? Gbawden ( talk) 08:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
With the newly implemented class=setindex
should some of the {{
mil-unit-dis}} (ones that only lists military units) be converted to set indexes ? and pages such as
Battle of Fallujah (ones that only list combat/military battles) -- then we could redlink battles missing articles, and units missing articles... I will note that that is how shiplists currently work, with redlinks to missing ship articles. --
65.94.43.89 (
talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Historian George Forty states that the 77th Division had "a special role of re-classifying men such as those who had returned from overseas under the six-year rule, returned POW, etc."
I have not been able to find any further information on this, anyone have any ideas what exactly this six-year rule is? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 01:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
PYTHON was the name given to the scheme started after VE Day that concerned repatriation and accumulated leave of regulars who had been serving overseas and also demobilization of overseas non-regulars, plus leave entitlement.. The favourite item of conversation in messes and canteens was one's PYTHON number. This number was based on a points system with points allowed for total length of service and the length of time one had been overseas. Points were also given for decorations awarded and for married men with children under 18. years of age.
LILOP was another scheme, it stood for Leave In Lieu Of Python. This was popular with regulars who were entitled to repatriation according to their Python number but who volunteered to be sent overseas again.
LIAP was a third scheme which was Leave In Addition to Python. I applied for LIAP when I was in the Arakan and had been 4 1/2 years overseas. I flew back to UK in a Dakota from Rangoon or perhaps Calcutta and landed at an RAF airfield in Somerset. I have no memories at all of this flight. I had 14 days leave and then I reported to the RE Depot Bn at Halifax. After about a week spent in drinking beer in pubs and chasing congenial nurses I boarded a troopship that arrived in Bombay three days after the Hiroshima bomb went off. Hurrah! - a free bottle of beer for all on board. Keith-264 ( talk) 06:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Would Draft:US aerial bombardment of North Korea merit a separate article or be better suited for Korean_War#Aerial_warfare? Thanks for your help, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. It seems that you are not the author of this article. I will post my previous comment on the talk page for the draft. Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 03:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people could make some very significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost's 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Member of this project are invited to participate in a requested move discussion that would benefit from this project's knowledge at: Talk:Construction battalion (disambiguation) -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
This is just a note to let members of the project know that the important article Mutiny on the Bounty, on which Brianboulton and I have been working over the past month or so, is now up at peer review here, with a view to going to FAC afterwards. All comments welcome. — Cliftonian (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI, a bunch of military units have been requested at WP:Requested moves to have their disambiguators removed speedily
If this hasn't been already processed, they will show up in a listing at WP:RMTR from this [10] request -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 04:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The consensus of the editors at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_11#Category:Military_facilities_of_the_United_States_in_Germany was to speedy large numbers of category changes from 'military facility'/'military base' to the 2010 recommendation of 'military installation.' The 2010 discussion was at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_12#Military_bases_and_facilities, and there I requested that all the subcategories be moved as well. Some were (eg Category:Military installations by country), and some weren't. To do the remainder, I wrote a series of CfD Speedies. I tried to do this, but @ Armbrust: consistently opposed every CfD Speedy that I've raised, on the basis that some of the subcategories mostly use the base or facility term. But the entire focus of my listings has been to standardize the entire category to the 2010 recommendation of 'installation.' I'm quite frustrated with this, and thus I have raised the matter here. I have invited Armbrust to put his point of view, because I cannot fully understand his reasoning at present. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
How are larger calibers denoted? Is it "40mm grenade" or "40 mm grenade"? Also, is it "100mm gun" or "100 mm gun"? (This is a continuation of a discussion here). Faceless Enemy ( talk) 11:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)#Requested move 17 May 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
OK I managed to add myself to the main list fine, but the Task Force itself not so much... Haha!
-- Luis Santos24 ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The fol SPI case (now closed) highlights the existence of widespread sockpuppet disruption across a range of areas including the Falklands War, Italian related World War II topics, Greco-Italian War, Battle of Crete, Battle of Greece, Battle of Dunkirk, and the Malayan Campaign (especially the Battle of Singapore), and others - pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TimSala/Archive. These accounts have been in use at various different times mostly in the last few years although some date back to 2010, indicating that much of this disruption is now unlikely to be able to be undone. Perhaps more disturbing is the likelihood of there being other accounts (and possibly new ones). The main accounts confirmed (and blocked) are listed below (there were also a number of stale users and IPs that couldn't be confirmed but were likely and have also be tagged but not listed below):
I hesitate to just undo all their edits (where that is even possible) as some appear to be helpful; however, given there is obviously several agendas being advanced here there are definite POV concerns as well. Is anyone interested in assisting to review the contributions of these (now blocked) editors and attempting to deal with any issues that become apparent? Thanks. Anotherclown ( talk) 08:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Also if editors working in these areas could also be on the look out for the reappearance of this editor (under a new name of cse) that would be appreciated. They have a fairly distinct style (as per the SPI) so should be fairly easy to spot unless they change their habits (obviously a distinct risk now due to the evidence presented at the SPI though I'd think). Anotherclown ( talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I think this is most of them. Some are far more affected than others (and some of the edits date back years so have probably been written over / changed over time) - Anyway I will attempt to prioritize them shortly. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Should the Iranian Commanders be listed in the Combat Infobox even though there was no direct combat between US and Iranian forces during the Iranian hostage rescue mission? Mztourist ( talk) 08:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel? for a discussion on which date format should be preferred for articles on US military personnel. — sroc 💬 09:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, is someone in this project skilled in drawing battle time lines? I was thinking that instead of something like this, the progression of both parties could be detailed in separate boxes until they clash. I have a diagram of the battle, but it comes from a copyrighted book, which is the reason why we need to handle it differently. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
An RFC has been posted at Talk:Supercarrier on whether to add a section, Proposed Supercarriers to the article [[[Supercarrier]]]. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 25 May 2015
The above move request may be of interest to this group. W C M email 22:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
...can anyone remind me where the guidance is on the formatting of gun sizes (e.g. how we format a "9 lb gun", a "75 mm gun")? They don't normally make an appearance in my medieval work and I can't find the relevant pages! :) Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to work up a stub on Wilhelm Brandt, who was a tank commander for the Bolivian army during the Chaco War. But looking up that name, I'm finding a Wilhelm Brandt who wrote about armored warfare in the 1920s, and during/before WWII desiged Waffen SS camouflage. I'm unable to suss out whether in between those phases he was mucking around in Bolivia, or whether these are two different people of similar name who both happen to be involved with tanks. Any input? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 18:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for your help! I've been meaning to write an article on that guy for like 5 years since I saw passing mention of the names of a few foreign tank instructors in the Chaco War in an Osprey Book. A few colorful characters drifted down for that one... This project always has some amazing experts emerging for the nichest questions. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 09:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) Does anyone know what I have to do to make the collapsing table collapse rather than open automatically and have to be shut? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 14:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the most famous Argentines in History, having ruled with an iron grip his home country for decades and engaged in several wars, including with the Empire of Brazil. The article is full ready to be nominated for FA, but I need to be sure that the writing is great. Is someone skilled at copy editing willing to take a look at the article? Regards, -- Lecen ( talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are we adding the "th" after "4.5"? It's not as if we are pronouncing it "four point fifth", (which would actually be written as "4.2"). It's silly, needless and doesn't make sense. It should simply be "4.5 generation". As in, between the "fourth (4th) generation" and "fifth (5th) generation", is the "four point five (4.5) generation". Can we drop the "th"? - theWOLFchild 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking to discuss the possible merging of both Queen's Rangers and King's Rangers into Roger's Rangers as a single, comprehensive article. Thoughts? - theWOLFchild 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I've repeatedly reverted a change to the year that the battleship USS Arizona (BB-39) was struck that is being made by new user Tiger-Man101 ( talk), but still he persists. Last time I looked, it was the single edit made by him, so I'm fairly confident that it just tenacious vandalism. I've posted to his talk page without response, so I'll leave it up to an admin to determine the appropriate response.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, back in November 2013, I moved a number of Russian submarine articles with the summary "Name comes before hull or pennant number or disambiguation. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Naming articles about military ships." It appears that such a convention applies chiefly to American and British ships, as those that serve in the Russian and Soviet Navies follow a different naming convention, with the name following the pennant number eg "K-141 Kursk". This convention appears to have been adopted by several other navies as well. Should the moves be kept as they are, or should they be reverted? Has there been a significant oversight on my part? Regards, -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello MilHist, can't finish this worthy stub for a DYK as day job calls. Anyone available to make Operation Sahayogi Haat a DYK? -- Djembayz ( talk) 11:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
An editor misread an article in Newsweek and is now trying to alter the infobox to reflect his contention that the US only had 4,500 troops in Panama and that the only units to participate in the invasion were the units flown in (such as the 82nd). In his version, units already there, such as the 193 Infantry Bde didn't participate. I've provided a considerable amount of reliable sources that refute this, but he has a massive case of WP:IDHT. Conversation is here [12]. Outside observations would be helpful. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
This new website might be of interest to a range of editors - it provides a mapped summary of every Australian Army engagement of the Vietnam War, and is being expanded to cover the Navy and Air Force's engagements. It's a pretty extraordinary resource for anyone with an interest in the nuts and bolts of small unit warfare, and should count as a reliable source given that it's hosted by a university and several members of the team who developed it are academics and/or published authors on this topic. Nick-D ( talk) 11:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Students involved in the Wikipedia Ambassador Program started a very helpful article (IMHO), Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States in 2011. I and others have built on their work since late 2012. The article is now close to A-class, and I hope to submit it to WP:MIL for A-class consideration on 30 JUN 2015 or shortly thereafter.
But first I would love to receive suggestions, feedback, and/or edits from you all. I started a new section on the article's Talk page, What is needed to make this an A-class article?, in which you can offer advice or, if desired, comment on edits you made. On that Talk page I also disclose my potential sources of bias, briefly describe my background, list experts who have reviewed the article and offered suggested changes, and list some of the potential problem areas.
Thank you very much,
Mark D Worthen PsyD 23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to let project members know that the article Mutiny on the Bounty is now at FAC here. All comments are welcome. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, there's a FTCR open at Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Minas Geraes-class battleships/archive1. It's been very kindly re-opened by GamerPro, and I'd appreciate your comments on it. Thank you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know why my laptop shows campaignboxes open and with no "hide" button? Keith-264 ( talk) 16:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
Is this really a military history issue or am I just missing the point? Timothyjosephwood ( talk) 05:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been going through the assessment backlog and found a template problem I don't know how to deal with. First, in the "no task force" area, I'm finding several that have task forces but are still coming up on the no TF list. The common thread in these is that they redirect to another article. for example, Talk:Battle of Girard, Alabama redirects to the talk for the article of Battle of Columbus (1865), and has a TF associated. I suspect that the redirect was created without redirecting the talk page, BUT....I dont know how to fix this. Others: Talk:Middle Tennessee Campaign. Talk:Last Stand Hill. Slowly whittling away on the backlog! ;) auntieruth (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a standard of who is Combatant 1 (left hand side placement) and Combatant 2 (right hand side placement)? Visually speaking, I think we should be consistent, and the battles of the Texas Revolution are disconcerting to me as is.
Mexicans as Combatant 1, on the left side:
Texians as Combatant 1, on the left side:
Any thoughts on this? Also pinging Karanacs — Maile ( talk) 13:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Which war would have affected the Nord department of France in 1616? Mjroots ( talk) 20:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Please can someone have a look at Draft:The Pleime Campaign about a Vietnam War campaign? Way beyond my scope of knowledge, so not sure if it should be accepted or not. Joseph2302 ( talk) 16:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I've gone through all the articles in the "needs task force" section. This one Draft:Battle_of_the_Isefjorden should be soon accepted, I think, but it needs some attention from someone in this project for citations, etc. I'm not informed enough on sources and situation. Would one of you take a look? auntieruth (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Three requested move discussions which concern this project have been started. They can be found at:
BMK ( talk) 17:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The naming and topic of {{ Types of armour}} is under discussion, see Template talk:Types of armour -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 05:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Please comment at the link above (it's self-explanatory as to what it's about). Natural Ratio ( talk) 18:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there a wiki view about adding them to book references? If they are to be added, is there an abbreviated version of the url? Keith-264 ( talk) 09:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been working on MGM-31 Pershing. The article is getting long and the Pershing II section will get longer. Should this be split into three articles and if so, what names would be used? Looking at how other missile articles use designations, I can see that this will not work for Pershing. The problem is that Pershing used MGM-31A to refer to the missile only, where Pershing I was the MGM-31A on the M474 carrier and Pershing IA was the MGM-31A on the M790 launcher. As best I can tell from military documentation, Pershing II never used a designation; MGM-31B is used on some sites and MGM-31C on others, but I can't find any definitive sources. -- 21lima ( talk) 12:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I have some drafts that I think are ready to move. Would someone give these a quick check. I'm sure they need a bit more polish, but moving will attract other editors. If there are specific issues, please discuss on the talk page.
-- 21lima ( talk) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
[13] An editor describing everyone who disagrees with him as "armchair generals", has by his own WP:OR and WP:SYN changed the article on the Falklands War to change the considered view that the British were concerned about the disparity between the small Harrier fleet on two small carriers, compared with the much larger Argentine air force. Instead he is asserting that the British were concerned about the surface threat more than the air threat. He is citing two sentences out of context from one book and claiming the cite supports the change he is making and throwing out the considered analysis of Lawrence Freedman in the Official History of the Falklands War. The actual cite he used stressed the concern over the air threat and the lack of AEW, 180° away from the edit he has made. Would appreciate some input from the learned gentlemen and ladies of MILHIST. W C M email 20:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Al-Awda is under discussion, see talk:The Return (guerrilla organization) -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 05:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Catalan hasn't edited much for several years, so I'd appreciate it if someone would have a look at this article before it hits the Main Page. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking to discuss the possible merging of both Queen's Rangers and King's Rangers into Roger's Rangers as a single, comprehensive article. Thoughts? - theWOLFchild 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of " No man's land"/" No Man's Land" is under discussion, see talk:No man's land -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 04:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
R. V. C. Bodley, an A-Class Military history article, has been at FAC since 6 May, though is in need of further comments. All comments on the nomination are welcome. If you comment on the nomination, regardless of whether you support, oppose or make suggestions, I will review any PR, GAN, FAC or A-Class nomination of your choice. See here. Freikorp ( talk) 11:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
An IP user just jumped in and messed up this page: Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force for Crisis Response
However the hostname of the IP is: gate25-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil
So before I try fighting the USMC (not a good place to be in), shall I try restructuring the page to be on the topic of all of the SPMAGTFCRs, with separate sections inside this page for the different regional ones? Hcobb ( talk) 16:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay? Hcobb ( talk) 19:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate some expert help in finding troop strength figures for the Operation Linda Nchi article - please see this discussion. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians! Could anyone have a look at Draft:Mughal-Rajput War (1558–78)? It seems to discuss the 2nd such War, as opposed to the existing article. Is it a good start? Please advise. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)