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. |
I moved 353rd Special Operations Group from 353d Special Operations Group. The official 353 SOG website uses 353rd but two squadrons in the group use 353d. In the history of the group on the 353 SOG website, 353rd is used with no 353d. On the AFSOC website, 353 group 353d is used except for the title which is 353rd. On the AFHRA website, 353 group 353rd is used with no 353d.-- Melbguy05 ( talk) 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Organizational actions (including naming) for USAF units follow a certain pattern. First, the Organization and Manpower office (currently DAF/A1M), using its Department of the Air Force (not USAF) authority issues a numbered memo (formerly letter) to the commander of the major command to which a unit will be assigned. This letter includes the official designation of the unit. Procedures for this are contained in AFI 38-101. Figure 5.1 in this instruction, "Unit Designation Examples", includes the "2d Bomb Wing". The memos (and earlier letters) issued by the Manpower office pretty consistently use "2d" and "3d" in designating units below numbered air force level. Other sources may use "2nd" or "3rd" or, as in AFHRA Factsheets, just "2" or "3", but they should not be relied on as authoritative, since they may differ not only from the official source, but from one another. Because WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME states that an article about a unit, formation, or base should be placed at "Name (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be . . . the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit . . . belongs. Unless there is a reason to violate that rule, 2d or 3d should be used for USAF units (as it is in the vast majority of USAF unit articles). -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 16:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a BAE Systems Tempest that just took down that next-generation threat!! The UK Govt is going to try and learn from the Tornado IDS and ADV programmes (and Eurofighter) and build a new next-gen manned fighter. Not confident that this will actually ever see service, however.. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on the article about the Canadian Naval Aid Bill of 1912, and there's a puzzling citation there: "While in the U.K., at the urging of the First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill, Prime Minister Borden agreed to finance the construction of three dreadnoughts for $35 million. [1]" Does anyone have any idea what the book cited as "German (1990" is referring to? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 13:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
References
I was thinking of nominating this article for deletion. Of all the British nuclear tests in the United States, it is the only one with its own article. (It's also the only one in Operation Julin, but isn't listed there.) Its only claim to fame above the other tests is that it was the last one. What it says is nothing more than what the table in the main article says. The first paragraph is correct but unreferenced and misleading; the CTBT was not the reason testing ended. The second paragraph is referenced but speculative. While I intend to greatly expand the main article in September, Julin Bristol seems destined to forever remain a stub. I'm not sure this is good enough reason to delete it. Opinions sought. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Another editor @ Marrtel:, has created Draft:First War of Austrian Succession, which is not the same as War of the Austrian Succession. If the conflict is better known by a different name, perhaps the draft could be moved to that name. If the article already exists, perhaps the draft could be merged into the existing article. The draft cites four references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello all, my A-Class review for Marcian (review link here currently has 2 supports and a source review; if someone would be willing to be the last reviewer (although as many as are willing to review would be appreciated) or perform the image review, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:12, 8 August 2018 (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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, the A-Class review for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/57th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) looks good to go, short of the source review our new procedures require. I'd do it, but most of the sources are in Russian and I am not familiar with the language or anything about the publishing houses. If there is anyone out there that can look at the sources to ensure that they are of high quality and reliable, that would be great. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I noted continuing disruption to military-related articles going back several months at least, by IPv6 addresses beginning with "2A02.C7D.". The edits are always WP:OR changes to budgets, costs, nomenclature and sometimes include comments about political scheming in the article. I revert when I see it, though sometimes multiple reverts are needed, and have sought page protection where the edits are ongoing, but perhaps a range-block is called for? I admittedly don't know much about seeking these kinds of blocks, so any admins or experienced editors here that can help? Or any other ideas? Thanks - wolf 22:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Dropped a question on whether the Kornet articles should be merged or not on the assessment page. Need someone's opinion. Ominae ( talk) 15:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Would a single book source of the 5th Regiment, Illinois Cavalry be fine to use? Adamdaley ( talk) 09:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
If Adamdaley is talking about Kohl, Rhonda M. (2013). The Prairie Boys go to War: The Fifth Illinois Cavalry 1861–1865. Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN 978-0-8093-3203-8., which was added to the bibliography on his draft, this seems like a perfectly reliable source to use, and probably superior in detail to Dyer as it is an entire book on the subject, compared to Dyer's long paragraph. Kges1901 ( talk) 10:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, could the coords please take a look at the fresh nomination at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards. Non-coords are also welcome to participate. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I see on Amazon, that quite a few history books have been created with "Createspace Independent". Does this mean that it's a publishing not independent from actual sources? I mean is CreateSpace a self-publishing source and would that hold up with Wikipedia? Adamdaley ( talk) 07:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary needs a third reviewer. If you aren't confident reviewing lists, have a look at WP:FLCR and scale it back a little, and look at List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire (which recently passed AL) to get a sense of what is needed to get across the line. BTW this is a good one to familiarise yourself with assessing lists, as it is already in fine shape, but fresh eyes might see some things that have been missed thus far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Is a ship name italicized when used as part of another name? Which is it, "USS Hornet Museum" or "USS Hornet Museum"? We seem to have disagreement between USS Hornet Museum (italicized) and USS Midway Museum (not). Kendall-K1 ( talk) 17:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Just saw the page title for Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum: "Intrepid" not italicized, but it is in the bolded opening sentence of the lead. Which is correct? - theWOLFchild 14:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Article HMAS Success (H02) uses template
which itself mentions HMAS Success under "Scuttled vessels". However, in the text of the article it says
Does sold for scrap count as scuttling? Shenme ( talk) 03:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Scuttling is the term used for sinking a ship. Breaking a ship is a term used for taking it to pieces at the breaking yards. They are not compatible. Tirronan ( talk) 05:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion has started on the following: James B. Donovan. Concerning his middle name. Adamdaley ( talk) 10:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This paper:
mentions the MILHIST project. The abstract reads:
While the myth of the ‘clean Wehrmacht’ has long been debunked in academic circles, one of the problems in changing the popular perception has been online representations, such as Wikipedia. Here many (but by no means all) contributors to pages about the Wehrmacht tend to divergent from prevailing trends in current (especially German) historiography. There is also sometimes a clear lack of historical training in evaluating sources and understanding the need for contextualization. The article seeks to show why students must always evaluate the process behind the generation of information and engage critically with what they read on Wikipedia (or preferably avoid it in favor of peer-reviewed literature).
Several editors are mentioed by name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Andy, thank you for bringing this into discussion. IMO, the aforementioned article on Journal of Slavic Military Studies has some strong points to show. Ok, the attitude of its author is characteristic of the academic caution wrt WP but he is not overall dismissive, I think. His strongest point is the use of uncritically published primary Nazi sources (e.g. memoirs) and and I think he is right, we should not use these sources:
There are two major sources fuelling the myth of the Wehrmacht in the Anglo-American world. The first is the persistent presence of the German generals’ memoirs, which is not to say they are not potentially useful sources, but they absolutely cannot be accepted at face value because, as one reviewer noted, ‘half-truths, lies, omissions, and distortions coexist alongside truth’. Exploring the Wehrmacht exclusively through these sources will remain a problem until new editions are produced with rigorous annotations to the text or, at the very least, introductory essays are added that make readers much more aware of the kind of problems they contain
Another strong point is that a self-published work does not become automatically suitable for use in WP just because it was reprinted by a a more reputable publisher.-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 12:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Some Nazi biographical articles have been edited by people sympathetic to the Nazis and have glossed over or elided facts regarding their subject's actions or beliefs in support of the Nazis and their belief system. Which violates NPOV and needs to be fixed. One thing that the sympathizers tend to do is to rely heavily on their memoirs which are full of lies, half-truths, and omissions. Doesn't mean that they can't be used in accordance with WP:BIAS (which is one of the fundamental issues of the Arbcom case that Arbcom couldn't resolve because it's fundamentally a content dispute), but that they should be pretty much limited to strictly factual information, IMO.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking at some of the instances cited by Stahel, the ARBCOM case is not only pertinent, but related. The first item Stahel mentions by LargelyRecyclable is one of the items cited by K.e.coffman (namely, the editing and sourcing of the Hoepner article). And as noted by the ARBCOM case, the general locus of the issue regards the use (and alleged misuse) of sources, and related to that, a more general issue of which sources are trusted and why. The conclusion that Stahel draws, it seems to me, is the same as the conclusion drawn by a great many editors here; that we would benefit greatly from a more critical appraisal of our sources (as can by illustrated by, e.g. the overwhelming support for the proposal to add more thorough source reviews to A-class review requirements). I think what is liable to be missed in this is that one of the things that Stahel points out is that the distinction between deliberate choice of distorted sources and inadvertently misplaced trust in the same sources can in certain cases fall away to end with similar results (that is, introduction of distorted material, whether deliberately or not). This in itself is something that can only be remedied by better understanding of the sources (which, of course, an internationally-recognised expert is more likely to have than amateur enthusiasts, which many of us are, myself included).
To this end, I am coming to believe that the simple distinction between RS and non-RS does not suffice in representing the spectrum of reliability; namely, the degree to which WP:QS can pass as acceptable to those unfamiliar with academic consenses on both the topics involved and the reputability of publishers that cover them. That said, even without an understanding of these consenses, we should be able to see that the memoirs Stahel mentions can be avoided simply by virtue of them being primary sources (which WP:PSTS cautions us against using for the very reason that Stahel cautions us as well: primary sources are inherently biased towards the views of the original author, and even when fact-checked or peer-reviewed, do not stand up in the same way as secondary sources do). This strikes me as a simpler remedy that would more quickly rule out sources that would also not have stood up to deeper scrutiny regarding the publisher and their editorial practices. That is not to say that such a scrutiny is not also warranted; we also need to develop a more nuanced understanding of publishers' practices (which is admittedly difficult without the involvement of academia), but that is a longer-term and more involved project for us to take up together.
In the short term, if we place the burden more on those introducing primary-sourced material rather than on those removing such material, we would be able to certainly improve on the shortcomings in sourcing and content highlighted by these events and the excellent work by K.e.coffman, and in so doing, avoid controversies as have been highlighted by Stahel and ARBCOM. Call it "RSS", for want of a better term. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( push to talk) 13:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Stahel says there are "many contributors" to pages about the Wehrmacht who diverge from prevailing trends in WWII historiography. He produces no evidence for this sweeping assertion, and there was (with perhaps one exception) none produced during the ArbCom case either. The evidence he quotes in the article, in nearly all cases is from editors who do not regularly edit articles about Nazi Germany, and who are in fact discussing sourcing on talk and review pages, and few if any of them are diverging from current trends in WWII historiography with what they have written. In at least one case, an editor who was trying to work collegiately and in good faith towards consensus has had their comments cherry-picked out of context by Stahel and have been highlighted unfairly. As others have noted, a handful of (mostly IP) editors probably subscribe to the "clean Wehrmacht" myth and actively seek to remove political/social/ethical aspects such as Nazi beliefs and war crimes from articles.
In my view, what has actually occurred with almost all of these articles is a focus on the purely military aspects of a person (they are almost all biographies), without including material on political/social/ethical aspects of the person's activities. This involves a number of biases revolving around two main factors: the interests of those editing, and the fact that many sources on these figures also focus on the purely military aspects and don't place their subject in their proper political/social/ethical context. In the ArbCom case I used my copy of the Oxford Companion to Military History as an example of the latter. It has no entry for the Commissar Order and the biographical sketches of most of not all of the German WWII figures in it do not mention it either. The entry on Erich von Manstein doesn't mention his role in the cultivation of the myth of the "clean Wehrmacht". Nevertheless, despite the limitations of many reliable military history sources, Stahel is right about the need to critically evaluate sources and we must also be careful about what a given source is being used to cite. Mundane matters do not require exceptional sources, but claims of someone being "anti-Nazi" or denials of alleged war crimes do. Questionable and biased sources need to be used carefully and attributed when they are ok to use. It is also incumbent on all members of the project to ensure that all articles they edit or review include material about all aspects of a given person (or unit) that are available in reliable sources, not just the purely military aspects. We need to do that at each assessment level, and we have recently instituted a quality and reliability source review at the A-Class review point to help ensure that happens. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone see why I've formatted it wrong? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 15:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
most of the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Memorial Museum article because it reads like a tour guide and that is because most of it is cut & pasted from the official web site. Think about whether this means anything to you or not. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 05:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As most people on here I've taken it upon myself to get the American Civil War Units for the Union (for now) names' right. I've started with the state of Alabama (last night) and now Arkansas (today) and I notice most have been changed already but not due to the National Park Service. What am I suppose to do when people take it upon themselves to change and make it more difficult for me? No, I'm not an administrator that can undo some of these redirects which adds to my frustration. Clearly, nobody knows what other people are doing since this was brought up in recent weeks as in the last 2 weeks. Can anybody have a solution to this mayhem and confusion? Adamdaley ( talk) 02:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I've noted inconsistencies in the articles related to the first twelve numbered fleet articles here. It seems that the 6th fleet structure makes sense:
"Sixth Fleet" redirects here. For other uses, see Sixth Fleet (disambiguation), and the article on the subject follows.
The 7th has the same structure and the others have parts of it. Does this structure make sense? Any problems with my making the others agree (except the 9th and 11th, which do not have articles, and could be redirected to Structure of the United States Navy#Numbered fleets or have stubs created)? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 06:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Some comments:
I propose to juggle the 7th fleet around first, since it's probably the most visible, and see if there are any issues. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 10:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Done with re-org. Still looking for more additions to dab pages, and looking at inlinks. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 07:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I suspect many members of Milhist may have access to the U.S. military documents and other records available through the Wikipedia Library's partnership with Fold3, but if you don't and are researching American history, you might want to consider signing up for Fold3 (eligibility requirements include having 500+ edits, an account that's 6+ months old, etc.). I've had some great research discoveries over the past several weeks, including finding a carte de visite image of a Medal of Honor winner (taken when he was in uniform). It was tucked away in a grouping of letters written after the Civil War. (I might have missed it if I hadn't found that record grouping from the U.S. National Archives by using the browse function on Fold3, rather than the search tool.) I got about 3 pages in, as I was clicking through each page of that particular group, and there he was, staring back at me. So, in addition to giving my fellow Milhist members a heads up about a resource they may not be famiiar with, I just wanted to extend my thanks to @ Iazyges: for helping me to obtain access to Fold3. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols ( talk) 19:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, this article about a US air ace of WWII and Korea is in need of an additional reviewer. Please take a look and make suggestions for improvements against our A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 19#Medieval military history by year. Tim! ( talk) 08:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, can I encourage you all to take a look at Category:Unassessed military history articles every now and again and assess a few articles? The backlog is building up, and if everyone assessed a couple of articles each time they logged on, we'd have it under control very quickly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello
I have come to tell you that there has recently been a problem with another editor on the validation of the belligerency of the United Kingdom in the article on the Spanish American wars of independence, as an "ally" that gave "military support" to independent governments.
That editor insists on adding the United Kingdom in the infobox as a belligerent, arguing mainly the following reasons:
1.- That during the war there were British soldiers in the patriots armies.
2.- That the British sold arms to independent governments.
While these two arguments are true, they are incomplete truths. I will explain why they are incomplete and why I believe that the United Kingdom should not appear in the infobox.
First of all we must take into account a fundamental situation, the United Kingdom declared itself neutral with respect to this war, it is an objective fact. The British State did not support any of the parties to the conflict.
As for the presence of British soldiers, although it is true, that editor ignores or gives little importance to the fact that these men were mercenaries. That is, they were recruited through individual contracts to serve under the authority of independent governments and in their respective military forces. They were not soldiers fighting for their country, because, as indicated, the United Kingdom was alien to the war. In addition, the motivations of these individuals were generally of an economic nature, since by the end of the Napoleonic wars, many soldiers were unemployed and with financial uncertainty. I must add that this situation occurred not only with the British, but also with the French, the Prussians and other European military men who served as mercenaries in the patriots armies, for the same reasons.
As for the sale of British arms to independents, although it is also true, the editor ignores that this sale of arms (or rather arms trafficking) was done by British merchants, and not because they were aligned with them, but by business. In addition, military items were also sold to the royalists. The British merchants were not supporters of anyone in the war, only took advantage of the situation to sell arms and get rich.
These are the reasons why I do not consider that the United Kingdom should be included as a belligerent, being eliminated from the infobox. Nor do I believe that mercenaries should be in the infobox as separate entities, since they were not, they were subordinated to independent governments and should be understood as included.
I would like to know what you all think about the matter. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 03:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
-- Caminoderoma ( talk) 04:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Are projects undertaken by the United States Army Corps of Topographical Engineers, or a similar organization in the scope of this project? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, this interesting article about the part-time volunteer organisation of the British Army between 1908 and 1921 could do with a couple more reviewers. Feel free to take a look and assess it against our A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this article has long been rated Start class, which does not seem add up in any respect. The sources are all right per reliable sources, except for one, which has my full credit all the same, but fair enough if it is not accepted by EN WP standards. Still it qualifies at least as a C by ORES, so please review it again. Thanks Iñaki LL ( talk) 12:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Are paramilitaries such as the Oath Keepers considered part of the project? I am not sure that such groups are military history. Kges1901 ( talk) 01:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Please expand Thomas Hawker (British Army officer), if you have access to suitable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to add them, if not I'll try to get round to it in the next day or two - Dumelow ( talk) 16:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hawk MM-1 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawk MM-1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - BilCat ( talk) 19:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Would the following book located [3] be a reliable source? Adamdaley ( talk) 03:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I wrote the Patriots (Ethiopia) article some time ago about the Ethiopian resistance movement that was active in Italian East Africa but was revisiting it recently. I'm considering renaming it either "Patriot movement" or using the Amharic term, Arbegnoch. Suggestions? - Indy beetle ( talk) 17:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I have two requests here:
1. Improve the article "History of Christianity" (like History of Islam)
2. Make an article on "History of Shamanism" (Shamanism was the official religion of the Mongol empire).
-- Genghis khan2846 ( talk) 17:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed the term "military practitioner" starting to appear quite often, particularly as the self-identified profession of South African soldiers (as seen on Linkedin, Facebook, blogs, etc). This may of course be a perception biased by my own location (Google is funny that way) or, as I suspect, it may be a quite recent coinage that has for some reason become fairly popular among members of the SANDF. Is the term in more widespread use or not? How new/old is it? Does its meaning significantly differ from the far more common "soldier"? Do you think a military practitioner article might be viable or is it doomed to be a mere WP:DICDEF only suitable for a line or two in Wiktionary? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 22:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information on SS Panzergrenadier Brigade 49 and SS Panzergrenadier Brigade 51? I've received the only book, that I'm aware of and the publishing was done by Merriam Press #SR3-P. This book got their information from Die SS-Panzergrenadier-Brigade 49 Parts 1-12 by Wolfgang Vopersal in Der Freiwillige, Deceber 1971-February 1973. and Die Sturmflut und das Ende by Hanz Stoeber and Die Eiserne Faust by Hans Stoeber. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Samuel Mitcham's series on the various Wehrmacht divisions have enough on each one to create a Start or even a C-Class article on virtually every division. There are plenty of redlinks in List of German divisions in World War II. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Erich Gimpel was born in the German Empire (between 1871–1918). But was a spy for Hitler (...in America) in World War II. What would his nationality be? If Nazi Germany was between 1933–1945. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
This is probably more appropriate for the Village Pump, but I thought I'd look for input here. A military history article on my watchlist was recently changed to add an umlaut to a place name. Apart from other considerations about this particular change, should articles written in English contain diacritical marks that do no exist in the English language? If not, (perhaps unique to umlauted vowels), should redirects be to a o u, or ae oe ue? If there is a WP:MOS that addresses this issue, direct me to it and I'll be quiet. Lineagegeek ( talk)
I posted a question about this at WT:SHIPS#Chinese ships w/ USN designations. Please have a look and contribute if you can. Thanks - wolf 08:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Could someone show me where to ask the bot to reassess the Military Biographies? It was the en.wikimedia bot for all of the wikiprojects. Just selected one to update and it updates a little later. Adamdaley ( talk) 09:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The battle infobox doc gives guidance on acceptable parameters for the result field which in turn, is given force by MILMOS.
There is a matter where an editor has altered the result contrary to the guidance/guideline and has also reverted back to their preferred version. Pls see Talk:Battle of the Coral Sea#Japanese Tactical Victory?. Further comment is sought at the TP. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I note that a formal RfC has now been opened on how the results of this battle should be summarised in the infobox: Talk:Battle of the Coral Sea#Request for comment. Input from uninvolved editors would be much appreciated. Nick-D ( talk) 04:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello.
A few years ago, I cited a Chinese company named “Yunnan Xiyi Industry Company Limited” for making clones of the Minimi and the MAG. So far, I’m not too sure if they’re actual manufacturers or just subcontracted. The only English source to go on is with Max Popenker via his book “Machine Guns”. My Mandarin’s bad, so I hope someone can help out a bit since a few sources cited before mentions State Factory 356, which IIRC has links to Changeng Machinery. Ominae ( talk) 05:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary) has a couple of supports and needs another reviewer. Bizarrely, this sub, the first ever Austro-Hungarian one, was designed with wheels so it could trundle along the seabed... If you have the time, please help out by assessing it against our A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, there is a RfC ongoing at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Request for comment that you might like to have your say on. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Politesse (SP-662) about an article on a boat requisitioned by the US Navy for patrol duties during WW1. Nigel Ish ( talk) 22:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland order of battle#Requested move 21 August 2018. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Reading the SMS Admiral Spaun article this morning, it was seriously under-categorised. I added several categories and created Category:Ships of the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Navy, which now needs populating. I doubt that a further breakdown by vessel type will be necessary. Mjroots ( talk) 14:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arab–Khazar wars has a couple of supports and a source review but needs another reviewer. It is about two major wars between the nomadic Khazar Khaganate of the steppe and the series of Muslim caliphates which occurred in the Caucasus between 642 and 799. If you have the time, please help out by assessing it against our A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi.
Krakkos has been creating stubs most recently from Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. University of California Press. ISBN 0520069838
. They have been consistently marked as patrolled by
WP:NPP (including myself) however I wanted to reach out here where there might be people with more expertise to evaluate as to whether these topics are actually notable and/or whether sourcing exists on them beyond Wolfram's book to support an article. Please ping as I am not watching this page Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 17:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:German resistance to Nazism#Split proposal: "German opposition to Nazism" and "German resistance to Hitler" for a discussion of the proposal to split German resistance to Nazism. HopsonRoad ( talk) 20:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The terms Kaketsuke Keigo refers to the JGSDF intervening in a situation to assist fellow peacekeepers or civilians employed by the UN (Mostly). Should there be an article for this? It's getting some news lately in Japan and overseas since it's an attempt by Abe to get them more involved in being involved in PKO operations. Ominae ( talk) 13:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Given recent conversations, how should we deal with Military Biographies? And if the tables listing individual victories are excessive, do they need to be revised? Do we have guidelines? Will they apply to all pilots or just to the Nazis. I'm looking for guidance! :) auntieruth (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
My thinking on this is we should do the same thing for the Brit and US pilots (etc.) that we do for with the Nazi pilots. Do we agree: Tables over 50 should be collapsible? I've done this on Hans-Joachim Marseille See what you think. auntieruth (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Are Bachelor's theses reliable enough to be used as sources?-- Catlemur ( talk) 17:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Some PhDs get published (with original typos and solecisms) reviewed and cited which helps to establish their value. I might add lesser work to further reading but would hesitate to cite them in the text. Keith-264 ( talk) 07:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated Battle of Cannae 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. DrKay ( talk) 17:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources - which may affect many articles within the scope of the Project. Nigel Ish ( talk) 17:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've written an article about the Sumpul River massacre and would like help improving. In particular, I would appreciate if some fresh eyes and more experienced writers would look at the sources and write a better description of the massacre itself for me. The information is mostly if not entirely there, but not really written in a way that provides a comprehensive view of the entire massacre; no such comprehensive view of the massacre exists and must be created out tidbits scattered across the sources, and that is not something a college freshman is well-suited to write. I can point out the best sources to be looking at for anyone interested. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 00:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the identity of HMS Auckland that was wrecked on the north coast of Australia in 1847, or possibly late 1846? Mjroots ( talk) 06:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Above retrieved from Archive 147.
Further info has come to light. The ship may have been named Lord Auckland according to this report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 December 1847. Mjroots ( talk) 06:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I was wondering if someone at this project can help me with the protocol for obtaining pictures of service academy athletes and coaches? I know many government/military photos are free use. I work on college basketball (and some football) articles and these would be greatly enhanced by photos. I am interested in historical figures, but also recent names like Nick Welch, who was an All-American at the AFA a few years ago. For example, can I use this photo of him? Thanks for any advice you may have. Rikster2 ( talk) 12:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
This article should be of interest to this Wikiproject: The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of ‘Lost Victories’? by David Stahel.
He identifies Wikipedia (and this project specifically) as a safe haven for the myth of the Clean Wehrmacht. It is an interesting read and I think the key valid point is that Wikipedia has a tendency to compartmentalize topics and issues as way of scrubbing articles. So rather than put in details about atrocities into the articles of German generals, some editors will argue (deploying a level of wikilawyering that cannot be bested) that the information belongs not 'here' but in the article on the topic. This issue is not unique to articles on German generals--the child abuse scandal was repeatedly deleted from the main article on Pennsylvania State University. I think the article is behind a paywall but it would be great if there was some way to make it available to this wikiproject. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 11:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the identitiy of the WWII French minesweeper that became the tug Valiant post-war please? Mjroots ( talk) 12:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
In response to the recent ArbCom case on the German War Effort, I've boldly made an addition to the Military history content guide regarding biographies, as follows:
It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their proper political, social and ethical context. For example, biographies should detail what reliable sources say about a person's political views, and should cover any involvement or alleged involvement of the person in war crimes, if applicable.
Feel free to tweak it as you see fit, or raise issues with the addition here if you prefer. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This now reads:
It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their proper military, political, social and ethical context. For example, the contribution individuals made to military campaigns should also be explained in a neutral way, including providing context for why they were there and what they were doing. Biographical articles should also detail what reliable sources say about a person's political views, and should cover any involvement or alleged involvement of the person in war crimes, if applicable.
Any other tweaks welcomed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I am thinking that too much emphasis is being placed on the "political context" for general advice. This is partly because of the reasons for making these changes (ie the GWE Arbcom case). The political context is probably more a construct of modern conflicts. It is also an element of the social context. Ideological context is perhaps better, in that it is broader than just political ideologies. It also captures religious and ethnic ideologies but it is still part of the social context. An ethical context is also part of the social context. Suggest: "placed into their proper military and social" but with further explanation of what constitutes the social context (political, religious, economic, ethical etc). The phrase: "including providing context for why they were there and what they were doing", seems (reads) a little trite. I don't think that it is capturing the intent it is meant to represent. I think that we want to say is something like: that the article should capture the social and military constructs of the "time"; how these shaped the individual and their actions; and in turn, how the individual influenced the military and social constructs.
All this, of course, presumes that such advice is applicable to the subject and that sources actually delve into these aspects. This advice may not be generally applicable and consequently not good general advice. What may be true for a senior commander may not be true for a private soldier notable for valor. Perhaps we need to contexturalise the advice rather than implying it is universally valid. Also, if the sources do not delve into these aspects, then we are creating an expectation that cannot be fulfilled.
As advice, "proper" is subjective. It lacks any definition of what that constitutes and therefore fails. Balanced might be better but is still subject to how an individual editor construes its meaning. I would agree with Peacemaker's concept of what this is but we need to capture and communicate this. I am not certain how this might be better phrased.
Finally, there is my pet hate. The role of history is to understand events (and people) within the constructs in which they occurred. Only then, can we gain an insight into the dynamics leading to the event. Only after this, should we compare and contrast the past with the present and if we do, the contemporary should be clearly distinguished and discernible from the contemporaneous. For example, in the nineteenth century, western cultures moralised on the "heathen savage". It would be just as wrong to moralise on nineteenth century western culture now. No insight is gained by applying contemporary social and ethical norms to another time and culture. However, after understanding the constructs of the time, we can have a better understanding of our present and of the human condition.
I support in principle, the intended changes but think we can do better. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC) of military operations, New iteration:
It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their wider military and social context. In a military sense, the contribution an individual made to a military campaign should be explained in a neutral way, including the wider context
forof military operations,and the person's actionsnot just the individual's combat decisions or actions. The social context should include, but is not limited to, how the individual fitted into the political, religious, economic, and ethical context of the time. Where high quality reliable sources refer to a person's political or ideological views these should be included. If an individual has been alleged to have been involved in breaches of the law of war, these allegations should also be included, along with the results of any legal action taken against them.
Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@ WP:MILHIST coordinators: and members, can we get a consensus position on the above addition to our content guideline please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
"It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their proper political, social and ethical context", I am opposed to
" For example, biographies should detail what reliable sources say about a person's political views, and should cover any involvement or alleged involvement of the person in war crimes, if applicable.". We should follow what premier RSes write. For many military personnel - we don't have info (or have very scant info) on their political views and "alleged involvement of the person in war crimes" is often present in fringey conspiracy theory sites. We shouldn't be whitewashing Nazis (when good sources with "dirt" exist on the individuals) - however we should avoid forcing inclusion. Looking a present (and retired in the past 20 years) US military personnel - their political views are often simply unknown, and war crime allegations are the purview of highly polemic, and in some case conspiracy minded, outlets. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
support more or less. i do think though that we are going to have issues over what is sufficient context ... auntieruth (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @ WP:MILHIST coordinators: could someone who hasn't been involved in this discussion formally close this? I think it has been open long enough to get a range of views. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 not sure how to close a discussion, but I'll do it if you give me instructions.... auntieruth (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I have posted a request here to move the "People's Liberation Army Navy" page to "Chinese Navy". - wolf 20:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)/archive2 needs a couple more reviewers. If you have some free time, please help out and assess this article against the Featured Article criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
At Wikipedia SEAL Team 1 is also shown as SEAL Team One and as SEAL Team ONE. Thoughts anyone? Jerry Stockton ( talk) 02:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Aegidius; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Would WP:MIL be interested in WP:S2019? We are organizing a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first Moon landing and walk on July 21, 2019 (UTC). Many of the subjects we aim to target and populate on the Main Page are biographies of people with long and distinguished careers in the armed forces. We want to internationalize and diversify our reach to include the most notable contributors to the Space Race, many of whom are notable figures in the Russian and United States military. Please offer your thoughts. Also see most recent discussion at WT:DYK#Special occasion to mark the 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon --- Coffeeand crumbs 05:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a Good Topic Candidate within the scope of our project that could use some input. The topic covers the V bombers, and the review page is located here. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 19:09, 10 September 2018 (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) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I came across this CIA article on Roderick Stephen Hall and his mission to the Brenner Pass while doing some work on the Axis war crimes in Italy article. Currently the Heinrich Andergassen article states "He was executed by Italy for his role in the Holocaust" but, according to the German Wikipedia article, he was executed by the Allies for the murder of Hall, as well as 6 other allied soldiers, alongside August Schiffer and Albert Storz. I haven't been able to verify this through reliable sources however. Has anybody come across a reliable source that could confirm this? Turismond ( talk) 04:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC at Template talk:US Special Operations Forces#RFC - should "Psychological Operations" be listed as a "type" under the Air Force and Navy?. -- Jpcase ( talk) 21:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone! Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The article lead currently reads The Mark 46 torpedo is the backbone of the United States Navy's lightweight anti-submarine warfare torpedo inventory, and is the current NATO standard. These aerial torpedoes are designed to attack high-performance submarines, and current, since September 1996,[3] variants, such as the Mark 46 Mod 5, were expected to remain in service until 2015. In 1989, a major upgrade program for the Mod 5 began to improve its shallow-water performance, resulting in the Mod 5A and Mod 5A(S). (my emphasis)
Well, were they retired three years ago, or are they still in use? This is embarrassing! Andrewa ( talk) 00:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Please see recent message from my talk page. Here. I'm a bit flabbergasted. — Maile ( talk) 00:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I've just written this article on an important Australian naval dockyard to fill a big gap that had gotten missed over the years - it built or worked on an awful lot of ships with articles. I'm more of a built heritage person, though and I don't know too much about ships, so I'd love it if anyone from here who does could take a look at it and fill in some gaps. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Are groups such as the Symbionese Liberation Army within the scope of this project? They do not seem to be part of military history in general. Kges1901 ( talk) 22:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"Hearst ... had been kidnapped by a group of armed radicals that billed themselves as the Symbionese Liberation Army, or SLA. Led by a hardened criminal named Donald DeFreeze, the SLA wanted nothing less than to incite a guerrilla war against the U.S. government and destroy what they called the “capitalist state.... They were, in short, a band of domestic terrorists."
Why was the Royal Danish Navy preventing ships of the Hanseatic cities from trading during the First Schleswig War? The Hanseatic cities, such as Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck, Stettin and Danzig were independent city states, and not part of the Kingdom of Prussia. Nonetheless, the Royal Danish Navy did capture merchant ships from these citie engaged in lawful trade. Mjroots ( talk) 08:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed on Amazon (U.S. and Australia) quite a few books now are through some sort of publishing source called "CreateSpace". Would these be unreliable due to the fact that it's not a reputable publishing company and secondary, the author could also be suspect. Any thoughts? Adamdaley ( talk) 06:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding merge/split suggestions for the Humvee manufacturing in China and Dongfeng Mengshi, although the latter could use a split to the Dongfeng EQ2050 and the Dongfeng CSK-131. Ominae ( talk) 02:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The compendiums of the Confederate Armies (by each state) by Stewart Sifakis reliable? Or are they reliable as the Union books, I have from ebookondisk.com if anyone remembers the discussion on my articles for artillery Connecticut. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone! Voting for the project coordinator election is now open. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. Please vote here by 23:59 UTC on 28 September! Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know what's happened to importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js');? There is something called Regex editor in its place. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 19:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed on the
NORAD page that it states; "...the deputy commander is always a Canadian three-maple-leaf general
" (Lieutenant-general). I know that Canadian rank insignia use maple leafs (leaves?) instead of stars, like the US and other countries, but the UK doesn't use stars either, and you often hear UK general and flag officers referred to as "n-star" generals and admirals, even though UK rank
insignia use combinations of crowns, pips, and crossed swords & batons. Are Canadian general and flag officers always referred to as "n-maple-leaf" generals or admirals? Is the word "star" ever used in place of "maple leaf"? Thanks -
wolf 19:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate the reply, and effort to resolve, but again I gotta ask; are you referring to just the quote from NORAD page? Or suggesting something wider? While "three-maple-leaf
" General or Admiral sounds kind of... quirky, I again refer to the use of "n-star" Generals and Admirals in the UK Armed Forces, and while they don't have maple leafs (leaves?) as part of their rank insignia|, neither do they have stars like the US Armed Forces, yet the phrase is still used. In fact, many countries (especially Commonwealth) use variations of pips, crowns, swords and batons, like the UK Armed Forces, instead of stars, but many of these countries flag officers are referred to "1", "2" "3" or "4"-star officers. So do we need to go bigger here? Perhaps a proper RfC? Some written guideance? Thoughts anyone? -
wolf 03:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
A discussion on the possible deletion of HMS Incomparable has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Incomparable. All interested editors are invited to comment.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Are there any other Wiki-projects that have coordinators? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Preussen (1903) already has a couple of supports and needs an additional reviewer. Please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, there is a discussion at Talk:List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36)#Re PROD regarding whether or not to include a list of ship captains in a ship article. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the term "Psychological Operations" or PSYOP shouldn't be considered a proper noun. There are various units, found across different branches of the military, that use the term "Psychological Operations" in their names, such as the 2nd Psychological Operations Group and the 7th Psychological Operations Group - and those two specific units are obviously considered proper nouns. But there doesn't seem to be any specific subdivision of the US Military simply called "Psychological Operations".
Some PSYOP groups, such as 7th and 2nd that I just mentioned, are a part of United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, while others, such as the 4th Psychological Operations Group and the 8th Psychological Operations Group, are a part of 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne). Both of those "Commands" are subdivisions of the Army, and my understanding is that still other PSYOP groups are a part of the Navy and Air Force.
I know very, very little about military matters, so I can't say anything for certain - but I'm not seeing any reason for the term "Psychological Operations" to be treated as a proper noun, which would suggest that the article Psychological Operations (United States) should probably be moved to Psychological operations (United States). I don't want to move the article unless I know for certain though, so I'd like to hear from some people who are actually knowledgeable about this topic.
I opened a discussion about this over a week ago at Talk:Psychological Operations (United States), but I haven't received any responses. I also opened a discussion about this at the Humanities Reference Desk; you can read that here. The Reference Desk discussion was archived before any conclusion could be drawn. -- Jpcase ( talk) 13:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The Reference Desk discussion was archived before any conclusion could be drawn." - So that's your answer; there was no consensus to move, which should be the end of discussion. But, it seems you're not getting the response you want, at the RefDesk or the PsyOps talk page, and you are starting to WP:FORUMSHOP. (all this for an 'o'... ) - wolf 22:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
there doesn't appear to be any specific subdivision of the US Military called "Psychological Operations"" - You just named several, including an Army Command. Are you looking for some kind of Joint Command? There aren't many levels above Command level. How far up the Armed Forces hierarchy does it have to be for a big 'O'? - wolf 01:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Flightsoffancy is attempting to use a non-free image, File:Do17z 20mm.jpg, on the Dornier Do 17 and MG FF cannon articles under fair use claims. Any help from experts on fair use would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 04:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I found a list of the African-American Civil War Units that needed to be created. Can I have some help in locating that list? Adamdaley ( talk) 09:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to improve Ebensee concentration camp. Do you have advice on sources I should use or not use on the page? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 20:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Should war profiteering be included in articles on collaboration? Your opinions welcome at this discussion. François Robere ( talk) 21:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
One of at least three temporary battlegroups that fought during Operation Martlet and Operation Epsom, and was made up of units from the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich. It seems like a pointless article, in need of review. 172.96.34.206 ( talk) 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Any chance of a rollback to clear the vandalism? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 19:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't have rollback and when I tried to manually revert I found that I couldn't, hence the request. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 16:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I had rollback for a while but declined it over conflict of interest. Keith-264 ( talk) 23:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I've added much refs to HNLMS De Ruyter (1936). I can't figure out how to remove it from the 'needs more refs'. Can someone do it for me? Stuart ( talk) 14:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, just over from WP:Cricket. The above cricketer had a noted military career in the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, including a DSO in WWII. However, I seem to be able to find very little on his military service. The London Gazette wasn't all that helpful either. I wonder if I can leave this here for someone with a little more knowledge on where to look to expand his article? Apologies if this isn't the place to post this request! PinchHittingLeggy ( talk) 22:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
An RFC has begun at Talk:Tom_Crean_(explorer)#RFC_SEP-29-2018, an FA-status article governed by this project. The RFC concerns a COI edit request received from an editor who is author of a self-published book on the subject. Advance Thank you's to editors able to stop by and offer input. Spintendo 15:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
My first attempt to find out how to get rid has failed, can anyone suggest where to ask questions about this feature please? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 19:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone. The coordinator election has now concluded, with the result that the following were elected to the ten coordinator positions for Tranche XVIII: Hawkeye7, Ian Rose, Parsecboy, Sturmvogel_66, Auntieruth55, Kges1901, Zawed, Iazyges, Arius1998 and myself. Thanks to everyone who volunteered to serve, and to everyone who participated. The voting turnout this year was higher than we've had for around ten years. A special welcome to the coordinator team for new coordinators Kges1901 and Arius1998, and welcome back to Hawkeye7 and Sturmvogel_66. Thanks to AustralianRupert, Biblioworm, Cinderella157, HJ Mitchell, KCVelaga, The ed17 and TomStar81 for their service to the project over the last year, as well as to the continuing coordinators. And finally, TomStar81 has been unanimously elected as our third Coordinator Emeritus. Well done, Tom! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC) for the new coordinator team.
WikiProject Military history/Archive 147 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
WikiProject Military history/Archive 147 |
---|
WikiProject Military history/Archive 147 | |
---|---|
{{{country}}} | |
Used for those deceased {{{use_dates}}} |
Why have they gone narrow? Keith-264 ( talk) 01:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Frietjes: I'd like the common width to be restored please; I think it looks better. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
<div>...</div>
containers while the infoboxes use <table>...</table>
. but, all four set the width of the outer container to "width:25.5em". if you are still seeing a difference, please tell me your OS/browser/skin. you can find your skin in
your preferences. a screen shot would be useful as well.
Frietjes (
talk) 14:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)I have been noticing a number of images of senior U.S. military leaders being cropped (primarily members of the Joint Chiefs, service staffs, and senior enlisted advisers), with the affect of removing awards, ranks, and other badges that could be quite useful to the reader. This is all on a divers number of pages, so I figured a centralized discussion could be started here on weather the MILHIST community agrees with these changes or what the opinions out there are. Garuda28 ( talk) 03:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's something that proves that cropping gives no benefit. The two images are set to frame sizes that makes the individual's face identical in size in article space. Ergo, there is no benefit to cropping, it doesn't serve a purpose, it's an artificial form of photo manipulation to draw a viewer's attention to a particular area of the original photo. One could argue that this was a POV-pushing exercise, since it forces readers to only see what the photo editor wants them to see rather than a wider scope of original information, i.e. medals, ranks, etc. IMO, this kind of practice is unencyclopedic and should not be permitted. Ed17 said "Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia, remember, and those medals should be covered in prose". Yeah, that's true. We could also use prose to say the individual has brown hair, blue eyes and a nice smile, in the interests of "general interest". However, I feel that most people studying history also want to see things for themselves... that's why we go to museums and visit graveyards, perform reenactments, or collect and maintain historical artefacts. Because history is about seeing, not just reading boring black-and-white modern textbook interpretations of the past all the time. Cropping a soldier's uniform is paramount to hiding his proven role in history from the public, limiting them to only reading about it instead of giving them both a visual and textual source and manner of seeing his awards. However you see it, support for cropped images like this is backwards-thinking... Wikipedia isn't short of space or bandwidth, and neither are most viewers when it comes to saving loading a few KB of extra data or pixels on the screen, to get the full picture without questionable cropping practices. Commons also has the ability to tag "other versions" so if someone really needs to see right up the individual's nose, they can always find a link to the cropped copy there. — Marcus( talk) 09:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If a user needs to look at a photo to see relevant and pertinent information the problem lies with the text of the article, not a cropped photo. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
So just came across some interesting guidance at the Wikipedia:Image use policy#Cropping that states "Within reason, crop an image to remove irrelevant areas. But do not "throw away information"." I would argue that the full image provides more information at a quick glance (even if it is only to a portion of the reader-bases). Furthermore, since these are used for military positions with unique ranks, I would argue that the rank is an integral part of the main image. The intent is not to say things that are not written (and perhaps we need to write more down anyways), but rather to supplement the information in the text. Garuda28 ( talk) 00:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Properly constructed "ribbon racks" in the article would be a big help here, though I realize they've been shot down and are presumably being removed." - Say what? - wolf 15:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to add that I agree with PM67 and Ian Rose; sourcing is paramount. But that said, if the awards are reliably supported, then I believe the ribbon rack, with accompanying table, is a good visual representation of the medals awarded to a military BLP subject. Now, I say this with experience primarily from editing US military BLPs, but I don't see why this couldn't apply to any other military BLP subject of another nationality. Most, if not all, other militaries have ribbon racks on their uniforms. I think this is preferable to either the basic list in the awards section, and/or the condensed and collapsed list in the infobox. (JMHO) - wolf 06:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petropavlovsk-class battleship/archive1 needs more reviewers or otherwise will be archived. If y'all are available, please help assist this article in its journey to Featured status. Thanks, Kges1901 ( talk) 19:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have the time to look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Territorial_Force/archive1? The article seems to be bearing up well but could do with "...at least one more comprehensive set of comments...". Thanks. Factotem ( talk) 07:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Central National Committee of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia#Requested move 24 September 2018. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Is necrometrics.com (and the book for it) - apparently written by Matthew White (historian) - a reliable source for numbers of casualties? The Wiki article and the PR comments on Amazon describe him as popular historian. It seems odd to base such complex and controversial numbers to a popular history source. According to his own website, White is a librarian with only "a couple of years of college" and no listed academic degree. If the source is not reliable, it would be great to remove it from Wikipedia as it is currently used 120+ times in various mainspace articles and lists. GermanJoe ( talk) 10:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There is an ongoing move request within the scope of this WikiProject at Talk:Psychological Operations (United States)#Requested move 25 September 2018. -- Jpcase ( talk) 12:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Just for the records, before the Arbitration Committee Elections of December 2018 begin there already is an active RfC in which election procedures and changes, inluding e.g. percentage of votes needed for being elected or the total number of arbitrators, are being discussed and also endorsed and voted for (or against). If I see it correctly it will be closed soon so maybe it is worth a look for those interested in that election. ... GELongstreet ( talk) 12:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Editors may wish to comment on this proposal on the article's talk page Lyndaship ( talk) 07:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
.. Need assessment, Need assessment as lists, Need task force assigned, Need project tag fixed and Need work on grammar are all without a backlog! Great work all! Eddie891 Talk Work 12:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
To mark the centenary of Johnson's VC action today I've had a piece published on The National Archives (United Kingdom) blog looking at his life and service https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/tommys-war-w-h-johnson-bellringer-vc/
The references I've used are basically included on the profile on Lives of the First World War that I've been building up in parallel https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/2128506. There are quite a few contemporary newspaper reports etc listed under "External Evidence" on that. I feel it would be a conflict of interest for me to edit Johnson's article here based on these, but others may like to flesh out the article/ The Lives profile does link back to the Wikipedia article, but hasn't actually been used for any facts. David Underdown ( talk) 10:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Our Polygonal fort article has had a "multiple issues" header for a few years now. I thought it could do with a complete rewrite; the result of my labours is at User:Alansplodge/sandbox/Polygonal fort. I would appreciate any comments.
I have never rewritten an article before, so if the above meets with your collective approval, some advice on the way forward would be helpful. Alansplodge ( talk) 20:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I´m writing as to inquire about the status of our special projects. 3 of the 4 had given themselves a deadline - 2 of those, Operation Brothers at War and Operation Normandy, have been reached years ago. The third, Operation Great War Centennial, will be reached (more or less) in six weeks. I find it suboptimal to have them displayed prominenty on the main page as what might appear as active failures, as none reached the set goals within their deadline. Or worse, a sign of project stagnation as nobody cared enough to update anything. Just doesn`t give a good first impression, a problem that plaques many projects. Maybe that could be improved by changing text or position (e.g. shifting below the taskforces). Or the status itself as they are essentially over thanks to the deadlines, if not changed. Admittedly a rather superficial, and of course just my personal, point of view of course. ... GELongstreet ( talk) 22:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Navops47 has done an amazing amount of very valuable work, now currently mostly on the Royal Navy in the twentieth century, but previously on fighting our recentist WP:SYSTEMICBIAS by working on the early English and Royal Navies.
However, I and other editors have had to continually come along later and restore titles of RN appointments, units, and formations to what the sources say. Navops47 is continually capitalising Command and adding it to unit titles, thus 'British Aegean Squadron Command' instead of what the sources say, which would be either Aegean Squadron or British Aegean Squadron.
I would kindly request you Navops47 to stop this practice, and follow the most reliable sources more closely. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The article, Battle of the Crater, has undergone a significant number of edits since it was assessed as B-Class (in 2006), including the addition of sources (at least one of which has been reported by reviewers outside of Wikipedia to contain factual errors) and the addition of a war crimes subsection, the wording of which has undergone multiple changes. At a minimum, I believe the article needs to be reassessed, but it might also benefit from having one or more of Milhist's most experienced editors perform a thorough review (and revision if incorrect information is found in the article). 47thPennVols ( talk) 20:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I just passed German torpedo boat Albatros to GA a day ago, and I wonder if I could FAC it. Are there any problems that would fail it? L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 16:01, 6 October 2018 (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) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm having trouble assessing Talk:German torpedo boat T23 as C-class. I've set the class= parameter to C and it displays as start-class. Could anyone help me out? Same for Talk:German torpedo boat T22 and Talk:German torpedo boat T24. L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 15:54, 7 October 2018 (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. |
I moved 353rd Special Operations Group from 353d Special Operations Group. The official 353 SOG website uses 353rd but two squadrons in the group use 353d. In the history of the group on the 353 SOG website, 353rd is used with no 353d. On the AFSOC website, 353 group 353d is used except for the title which is 353rd. On the AFHRA website, 353 group 353rd is used with no 353d.-- Melbguy05 ( talk) 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Organizational actions (including naming) for USAF units follow a certain pattern. First, the Organization and Manpower office (currently DAF/A1M), using its Department of the Air Force (not USAF) authority issues a numbered memo (formerly letter) to the commander of the major command to which a unit will be assigned. This letter includes the official designation of the unit. Procedures for this are contained in AFI 38-101. Figure 5.1 in this instruction, "Unit Designation Examples", includes the "2d Bomb Wing". The memos (and earlier letters) issued by the Manpower office pretty consistently use "2d" and "3d" in designating units below numbered air force level. Other sources may use "2nd" or "3rd" or, as in AFHRA Factsheets, just "2" or "3", but they should not be relied on as authoritative, since they may differ not only from the official source, but from one another. Because WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME states that an article about a unit, formation, or base should be placed at "Name (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be . . . the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit . . . belongs. Unless there is a reason to violate that rule, 2d or 3d should be used for USAF units (as it is in the vast majority of USAF unit articles). -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 16:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a BAE Systems Tempest that just took down that next-generation threat!! The UK Govt is going to try and learn from the Tornado IDS and ADV programmes (and Eurofighter) and build a new next-gen manned fighter. Not confident that this will actually ever see service, however.. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on the article about the Canadian Naval Aid Bill of 1912, and there's a puzzling citation there: "While in the U.K., at the urging of the First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill, Prime Minister Borden agreed to finance the construction of three dreadnoughts for $35 million. [1]" Does anyone have any idea what the book cited as "German (1990" is referring to? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 13:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
References
I was thinking of nominating this article for deletion. Of all the British nuclear tests in the United States, it is the only one with its own article. (It's also the only one in Operation Julin, but isn't listed there.) Its only claim to fame above the other tests is that it was the last one. What it says is nothing more than what the table in the main article says. The first paragraph is correct but unreferenced and misleading; the CTBT was not the reason testing ended. The second paragraph is referenced but speculative. While I intend to greatly expand the main article in September, Julin Bristol seems destined to forever remain a stub. I'm not sure this is good enough reason to delete it. Opinions sought. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Another editor @ Marrtel:, has created Draft:First War of Austrian Succession, which is not the same as War of the Austrian Succession. If the conflict is better known by a different name, perhaps the draft could be moved to that name. If the article already exists, perhaps the draft could be merged into the existing article. The draft cites four references. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello all, my A-Class review for Marcian (review link here currently has 2 supports and a source review; if someone would be willing to be the last reviewer (although as many as are willing to review would be appreciated) or perform the image review, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:12, 8 August 2018 (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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, the A-Class review for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/57th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) looks good to go, short of the source review our new procedures require. I'd do it, but most of the sources are in Russian and I am not familiar with the language or anything about the publishing houses. If there is anyone out there that can look at the sources to ensure that they are of high quality and reliable, that would be great. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I noted continuing disruption to military-related articles going back several months at least, by IPv6 addresses beginning with "2A02.C7D.". The edits are always WP:OR changes to budgets, costs, nomenclature and sometimes include comments about political scheming in the article. I revert when I see it, though sometimes multiple reverts are needed, and have sought page protection where the edits are ongoing, but perhaps a range-block is called for? I admittedly don't know much about seeking these kinds of blocks, so any admins or experienced editors here that can help? Or any other ideas? Thanks - wolf 22:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Dropped a question on whether the Kornet articles should be merged or not on the assessment page. Need someone's opinion. Ominae ( talk) 15:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Would a single book source of the 5th Regiment, Illinois Cavalry be fine to use? Adamdaley ( talk) 09:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
If Adamdaley is talking about Kohl, Rhonda M. (2013). The Prairie Boys go to War: The Fifth Illinois Cavalry 1861–1865. Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN 978-0-8093-3203-8., which was added to the bibliography on his draft, this seems like a perfectly reliable source to use, and probably superior in detail to Dyer as it is an entire book on the subject, compared to Dyer's long paragraph. Kges1901 ( talk) 10:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, could the coords please take a look at the fresh nomination at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards. Non-coords are also welcome to participate. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I see on Amazon, that quite a few history books have been created with "Createspace Independent". Does this mean that it's a publishing not independent from actual sources? I mean is CreateSpace a self-publishing source and would that hold up with Wikipedia? Adamdaley ( talk) 07:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of ironclad warships of Austria-Hungary needs a third reviewer. If you aren't confident reviewing lists, have a look at WP:FLCR and scale it back a little, and look at List of ironclad warships of the Ottoman Empire (which recently passed AL) to get a sense of what is needed to get across the line. BTW this is a good one to familiarise yourself with assessing lists, as it is already in fine shape, but fresh eyes might see some things that have been missed thus far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Is a ship name italicized when used as part of another name? Which is it, "USS Hornet Museum" or "USS Hornet Museum"? We seem to have disagreement between USS Hornet Museum (italicized) and USS Midway Museum (not). Kendall-K1 ( talk) 17:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Just saw the page title for Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum: "Intrepid" not italicized, but it is in the bolded opening sentence of the lead. Which is correct? - theWOLFchild 14:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Article HMAS Success (H02) uses template
which itself mentions HMAS Success under "Scuttled vessels". However, in the text of the article it says
Does sold for scrap count as scuttling? Shenme ( talk) 03:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Scuttling is the term used for sinking a ship. Breaking a ship is a term used for taking it to pieces at the breaking yards. They are not compatible. Tirronan ( talk) 05:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion has started on the following: James B. Donovan. Concerning his middle name. Adamdaley ( talk) 10:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This paper:
mentions the MILHIST project. The abstract reads:
While the myth of the ‘clean Wehrmacht’ has long been debunked in academic circles, one of the problems in changing the popular perception has been online representations, such as Wikipedia. Here many (but by no means all) contributors to pages about the Wehrmacht tend to divergent from prevailing trends in current (especially German) historiography. There is also sometimes a clear lack of historical training in evaluating sources and understanding the need for contextualization. The article seeks to show why students must always evaluate the process behind the generation of information and engage critically with what they read on Wikipedia (or preferably avoid it in favor of peer-reviewed literature).
Several editors are mentioed by name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Andy, thank you for bringing this into discussion. IMO, the aforementioned article on Journal of Slavic Military Studies has some strong points to show. Ok, the attitude of its author is characteristic of the academic caution wrt WP but he is not overall dismissive, I think. His strongest point is the use of uncritically published primary Nazi sources (e.g. memoirs) and and I think he is right, we should not use these sources:
There are two major sources fuelling the myth of the Wehrmacht in the Anglo-American world. The first is the persistent presence of the German generals’ memoirs, which is not to say they are not potentially useful sources, but they absolutely cannot be accepted at face value because, as one reviewer noted, ‘half-truths, lies, omissions, and distortions coexist alongside truth’. Exploring the Wehrmacht exclusively through these sources will remain a problem until new editions are produced with rigorous annotations to the text or, at the very least, introductory essays are added that make readers much more aware of the kind of problems they contain
Another strong point is that a self-published work does not become automatically suitable for use in WP just because it was reprinted by a a more reputable publisher.-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 12:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Some Nazi biographical articles have been edited by people sympathetic to the Nazis and have glossed over or elided facts regarding their subject's actions or beliefs in support of the Nazis and their belief system. Which violates NPOV and needs to be fixed. One thing that the sympathizers tend to do is to rely heavily on their memoirs which are full of lies, half-truths, and omissions. Doesn't mean that they can't be used in accordance with WP:BIAS (which is one of the fundamental issues of the Arbcom case that Arbcom couldn't resolve because it's fundamentally a content dispute), but that they should be pretty much limited to strictly factual information, IMO.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking at some of the instances cited by Stahel, the ARBCOM case is not only pertinent, but related. The first item Stahel mentions by LargelyRecyclable is one of the items cited by K.e.coffman (namely, the editing and sourcing of the Hoepner article). And as noted by the ARBCOM case, the general locus of the issue regards the use (and alleged misuse) of sources, and related to that, a more general issue of which sources are trusted and why. The conclusion that Stahel draws, it seems to me, is the same as the conclusion drawn by a great many editors here; that we would benefit greatly from a more critical appraisal of our sources (as can by illustrated by, e.g. the overwhelming support for the proposal to add more thorough source reviews to A-class review requirements). I think what is liable to be missed in this is that one of the things that Stahel points out is that the distinction between deliberate choice of distorted sources and inadvertently misplaced trust in the same sources can in certain cases fall away to end with similar results (that is, introduction of distorted material, whether deliberately or not). This in itself is something that can only be remedied by better understanding of the sources (which, of course, an internationally-recognised expert is more likely to have than amateur enthusiasts, which many of us are, myself included).
To this end, I am coming to believe that the simple distinction between RS and non-RS does not suffice in representing the spectrum of reliability; namely, the degree to which WP:QS can pass as acceptable to those unfamiliar with academic consenses on both the topics involved and the reputability of publishers that cover them. That said, even without an understanding of these consenses, we should be able to see that the memoirs Stahel mentions can be avoided simply by virtue of them being primary sources (which WP:PSTS cautions us against using for the very reason that Stahel cautions us as well: primary sources are inherently biased towards the views of the original author, and even when fact-checked or peer-reviewed, do not stand up in the same way as secondary sources do). This strikes me as a simpler remedy that would more quickly rule out sources that would also not have stood up to deeper scrutiny regarding the publisher and their editorial practices. That is not to say that such a scrutiny is not also warranted; we also need to develop a more nuanced understanding of publishers' practices (which is admittedly difficult without the involvement of academia), but that is a longer-term and more involved project for us to take up together.
In the short term, if we place the burden more on those introducing primary-sourced material rather than on those removing such material, we would be able to certainly improve on the shortcomings in sourcing and content highlighted by these events and the excellent work by K.e.coffman, and in so doing, avoid controversies as have been highlighted by Stahel and ARBCOM. Call it "RSS", for want of a better term. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( push to talk) 13:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Stahel says there are "many contributors" to pages about the Wehrmacht who diverge from prevailing trends in WWII historiography. He produces no evidence for this sweeping assertion, and there was (with perhaps one exception) none produced during the ArbCom case either. The evidence he quotes in the article, in nearly all cases is from editors who do not regularly edit articles about Nazi Germany, and who are in fact discussing sourcing on talk and review pages, and few if any of them are diverging from current trends in WWII historiography with what they have written. In at least one case, an editor who was trying to work collegiately and in good faith towards consensus has had their comments cherry-picked out of context by Stahel and have been highlighted unfairly. As others have noted, a handful of (mostly IP) editors probably subscribe to the "clean Wehrmacht" myth and actively seek to remove political/social/ethical aspects such as Nazi beliefs and war crimes from articles.
In my view, what has actually occurred with almost all of these articles is a focus on the purely military aspects of a person (they are almost all biographies), without including material on political/social/ethical aspects of the person's activities. This involves a number of biases revolving around two main factors: the interests of those editing, and the fact that many sources on these figures also focus on the purely military aspects and don't place their subject in their proper political/social/ethical context. In the ArbCom case I used my copy of the Oxford Companion to Military History as an example of the latter. It has no entry for the Commissar Order and the biographical sketches of most of not all of the German WWII figures in it do not mention it either. The entry on Erich von Manstein doesn't mention his role in the cultivation of the myth of the "clean Wehrmacht". Nevertheless, despite the limitations of many reliable military history sources, Stahel is right about the need to critically evaluate sources and we must also be careful about what a given source is being used to cite. Mundane matters do not require exceptional sources, but claims of someone being "anti-Nazi" or denials of alleged war crimes do. Questionable and biased sources need to be used carefully and attributed when they are ok to use. It is also incumbent on all members of the project to ensure that all articles they edit or review include material about all aspects of a given person (or unit) that are available in reliable sources, not just the purely military aspects. We need to do that at each assessment level, and we have recently instituted a quality and reliability source review at the A-Class review point to help ensure that happens. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone see why I've formatted it wrong? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 15:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
most of the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Memorial Museum article because it reads like a tour guide and that is because most of it is cut & pasted from the official web site. Think about whether this means anything to you or not. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 05:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As most people on here I've taken it upon myself to get the American Civil War Units for the Union (for now) names' right. I've started with the state of Alabama (last night) and now Arkansas (today) and I notice most have been changed already but not due to the National Park Service. What am I suppose to do when people take it upon themselves to change and make it more difficult for me? No, I'm not an administrator that can undo some of these redirects which adds to my frustration. Clearly, nobody knows what other people are doing since this was brought up in recent weeks as in the last 2 weeks. Can anybody have a solution to this mayhem and confusion? Adamdaley ( talk) 02:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I've noted inconsistencies in the articles related to the first twelve numbered fleet articles here. It seems that the 6th fleet structure makes sense:
"Sixth Fleet" redirects here. For other uses, see Sixth Fleet (disambiguation), and the article on the subject follows.
The 7th has the same structure and the others have parts of it. Does this structure make sense? Any problems with my making the others agree (except the 9th and 11th, which do not have articles, and could be redirected to Structure of the United States Navy#Numbered fleets or have stubs created)? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 06:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Some comments:
I propose to juggle the 7th fleet around first, since it's probably the most visible, and see if there are any issues. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 10:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Done with re-org. Still looking for more additions to dab pages, and looking at inlinks. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 07:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I suspect many members of Milhist may have access to the U.S. military documents and other records available through the Wikipedia Library's partnership with Fold3, but if you don't and are researching American history, you might want to consider signing up for Fold3 (eligibility requirements include having 500+ edits, an account that's 6+ months old, etc.). I've had some great research discoveries over the past several weeks, including finding a carte de visite image of a Medal of Honor winner (taken when he was in uniform). It was tucked away in a grouping of letters written after the Civil War. (I might have missed it if I hadn't found that record grouping from the U.S. National Archives by using the browse function on Fold3, rather than the search tool.) I got about 3 pages in, as I was clicking through each page of that particular group, and there he was, staring back at me. So, in addition to giving my fellow Milhist members a heads up about a resource they may not be famiiar with, I just wanted to extend my thanks to @ Iazyges: for helping me to obtain access to Fold3. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols ( talk) 19:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, this article about a US air ace of WWII and Korea is in need of an additional reviewer. Please take a look and make suggestions for improvements against our A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 19#Medieval military history by year. Tim! ( talk) 08:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, can I encourage you all to take a look at Category:Unassessed military history articles every now and again and assess a few articles? The backlog is building up, and if everyone assessed a couple of articles each time they logged on, we'd have it under control very quickly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello
I have come to tell you that there has recently been a problem with another editor on the validation of the belligerency of the United Kingdom in the article on the Spanish American wars of independence, as an "ally" that gave "military support" to independent governments.
That editor insists on adding the United Kingdom in the infobox as a belligerent, arguing mainly the following reasons:
1.- That during the war there were British soldiers in the patriots armies.
2.- That the British sold arms to independent governments.
While these two arguments are true, they are incomplete truths. I will explain why they are incomplete and why I believe that the United Kingdom should not appear in the infobox.
First of all we must take into account a fundamental situation, the United Kingdom declared itself neutral with respect to this war, it is an objective fact. The British State did not support any of the parties to the conflict.
As for the presence of British soldiers, although it is true, that editor ignores or gives little importance to the fact that these men were mercenaries. That is, they were recruited through individual contracts to serve under the authority of independent governments and in their respective military forces. They were not soldiers fighting for their country, because, as indicated, the United Kingdom was alien to the war. In addition, the motivations of these individuals were generally of an economic nature, since by the end of the Napoleonic wars, many soldiers were unemployed and with financial uncertainty. I must add that this situation occurred not only with the British, but also with the French, the Prussians and other European military men who served as mercenaries in the patriots armies, for the same reasons.
As for the sale of British arms to independents, although it is also true, the editor ignores that this sale of arms (or rather arms trafficking) was done by British merchants, and not because they were aligned with them, but by business. In addition, military items were also sold to the royalists. The British merchants were not supporters of anyone in the war, only took advantage of the situation to sell arms and get rich.
These are the reasons why I do not consider that the United Kingdom should be included as a belligerent, being eliminated from the infobox. Nor do I believe that mercenaries should be in the infobox as separate entities, since they were not, they were subordinated to independent governments and should be understood as included.
I would like to know what you all think about the matter. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 03:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
-- Caminoderoma ( talk) 04:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Are projects undertaken by the United States Army Corps of Topographical Engineers, or a similar organization in the scope of this project? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, this interesting article about the part-time volunteer organisation of the British Army between 1908 and 1921 could do with a couple more reviewers. Feel free to take a look and assess it against our A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this article has long been rated Start class, which does not seem add up in any respect. The sources are all right per reliable sources, except for one, which has my full credit all the same, but fair enough if it is not accepted by EN WP standards. Still it qualifies at least as a C by ORES, so please review it again. Thanks Iñaki LL ( talk) 12:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Are paramilitaries such as the Oath Keepers considered part of the project? I am not sure that such groups are military history. Kges1901 ( talk) 01:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Please expand Thomas Hawker (British Army officer), if you have access to suitable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to add them, if not I'll try to get round to it in the next day or two - Dumelow ( talk) 16:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hawk MM-1 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawk MM-1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - BilCat ( talk) 19:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Would the following book located [3] be a reliable source? Adamdaley ( talk) 03:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I wrote the Patriots (Ethiopia) article some time ago about the Ethiopian resistance movement that was active in Italian East Africa but was revisiting it recently. I'm considering renaming it either "Patriot movement" or using the Amharic term, Arbegnoch. Suggestions? - Indy beetle ( talk) 17:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I have two requests here:
1. Improve the article "History of Christianity" (like History of Islam)
2. Make an article on "History of Shamanism" (Shamanism was the official religion of the Mongol empire).
-- Genghis khan2846 ( talk) 17:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed the term "military practitioner" starting to appear quite often, particularly as the self-identified profession of South African soldiers (as seen on Linkedin, Facebook, blogs, etc). This may of course be a perception biased by my own location (Google is funny that way) or, as I suspect, it may be a quite recent coinage that has for some reason become fairly popular among members of the SANDF. Is the term in more widespread use or not? How new/old is it? Does its meaning significantly differ from the far more common "soldier"? Do you think a military practitioner article might be viable or is it doomed to be a mere WP:DICDEF only suitable for a line or two in Wiktionary? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 22:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any information on SS Panzergrenadier Brigade 49 and SS Panzergrenadier Brigade 51? I've received the only book, that I'm aware of and the publishing was done by Merriam Press #SR3-P. This book got their information from Die SS-Panzergrenadier-Brigade 49 Parts 1-12 by Wolfgang Vopersal in Der Freiwillige, Deceber 1971-February 1973. and Die Sturmflut und das Ende by Hanz Stoeber and Die Eiserne Faust by Hans Stoeber. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Samuel Mitcham's series on the various Wehrmacht divisions have enough on each one to create a Start or even a C-Class article on virtually every division. There are plenty of redlinks in List of German divisions in World War II. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Erich Gimpel was born in the German Empire (between 1871–1918). But was a spy for Hitler (...in America) in World War II. What would his nationality be? If Nazi Germany was between 1933–1945. Adamdaley ( talk) 07:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
This is probably more appropriate for the Village Pump, but I thought I'd look for input here. A military history article on my watchlist was recently changed to add an umlaut to a place name. Apart from other considerations about this particular change, should articles written in English contain diacritical marks that do no exist in the English language? If not, (perhaps unique to umlauted vowels), should redirects be to a o u, or ae oe ue? If there is a WP:MOS that addresses this issue, direct me to it and I'll be quiet. Lineagegeek ( talk)
I posted a question about this at WT:SHIPS#Chinese ships w/ USN designations. Please have a look and contribute if you can. Thanks - wolf 08:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Could someone show me where to ask the bot to reassess the Military Biographies? It was the en.wikimedia bot for all of the wikiprojects. Just selected one to update and it updates a little later. Adamdaley ( talk) 09:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The battle infobox doc gives guidance on acceptable parameters for the result field which in turn, is given force by MILMOS.
There is a matter where an editor has altered the result contrary to the guidance/guideline and has also reverted back to their preferred version. Pls see Talk:Battle of the Coral Sea#Japanese Tactical Victory?. Further comment is sought at the TP. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I note that a formal RfC has now been opened on how the results of this battle should be summarised in the infobox: Talk:Battle of the Coral Sea#Request for comment. Input from uninvolved editors would be much appreciated. Nick-D ( talk) 04:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello.
A few years ago, I cited a Chinese company named “Yunnan Xiyi Industry Company Limited” for making clones of the Minimi and the MAG. So far, I’m not too sure if they’re actual manufacturers or just subcontracted. The only English source to go on is with Max Popenker via his book “Machine Guns”. My Mandarin’s bad, so I hope someone can help out a bit since a few sources cited before mentions State Factory 356, which IIRC has links to Changeng Machinery. Ominae ( talk) 05:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary) has a couple of supports and needs another reviewer. Bizarrely, this sub, the first ever Austro-Hungarian one, was designed with wheels so it could trundle along the seabed... If you have the time, please help out by assessing it against our A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, there is a RfC ongoing at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Request for comment that you might like to have your say on. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Politesse (SP-662) about an article on a boat requisitioned by the US Navy for patrol duties during WW1. Nigel Ish ( talk) 22:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland order of battle#Requested move 21 August 2018. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Reading the SMS Admiral Spaun article this morning, it was seriously under-categorised. I added several categories and created Category:Ships of the State of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Navy, which now needs populating. I doubt that a further breakdown by vessel type will be necessary. Mjroots ( talk) 14:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arab–Khazar wars has a couple of supports and a source review but needs another reviewer. It is about two major wars between the nomadic Khazar Khaganate of the steppe and the series of Muslim caliphates which occurred in the Caucasus between 642 and 799. If you have the time, please help out by assessing it against our A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi.
Krakkos has been creating stubs most recently from Wolfram, Herwig (1990). History of the Goths. University of California Press. ISBN 0520069838
. They have been consistently marked as patrolled by
WP:NPP (including myself) however I wanted to reach out here where there might be people with more expertise to evaluate as to whether these topics are actually notable and/or whether sourcing exists on them beyond Wolfram's book to support an article. Please ping as I am not watching this page Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 17:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:German resistance to Nazism#Split proposal: "German opposition to Nazism" and "German resistance to Hitler" for a discussion of the proposal to split German resistance to Nazism. HopsonRoad ( talk) 20:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The terms Kaketsuke Keigo refers to the JGSDF intervening in a situation to assist fellow peacekeepers or civilians employed by the UN (Mostly). Should there be an article for this? It's getting some news lately in Japan and overseas since it's an attempt by Abe to get them more involved in being involved in PKO operations. Ominae ( talk) 13:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Given recent conversations, how should we deal with Military Biographies? And if the tables listing individual victories are excessive, do they need to be revised? Do we have guidelines? Will they apply to all pilots or just to the Nazis. I'm looking for guidance! :) auntieruth (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
My thinking on this is we should do the same thing for the Brit and US pilots (etc.) that we do for with the Nazi pilots. Do we agree: Tables over 50 should be collapsible? I've done this on Hans-Joachim Marseille See what you think. auntieruth (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Are Bachelor's theses reliable enough to be used as sources?-- Catlemur ( talk) 17:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Some PhDs get published (with original typos and solecisms) reviewed and cited which helps to establish their value. I might add lesser work to further reading but would hesitate to cite them in the text. Keith-264 ( talk) 07:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated Battle of Cannae 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. DrKay ( talk) 17:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#OberRanks_and_fabricated_sources - which may affect many articles within the scope of the Project. Nigel Ish ( talk) 17:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've written an article about the Sumpul River massacre and would like help improving. In particular, I would appreciate if some fresh eyes and more experienced writers would look at the sources and write a better description of the massacre itself for me. The information is mostly if not entirely there, but not really written in a way that provides a comprehensive view of the entire massacre; no such comprehensive view of the massacre exists and must be created out tidbits scattered across the sources, and that is not something a college freshman is well-suited to write. I can point out the best sources to be looking at for anyone interested. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 00:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the identity of HMS Auckland that was wrecked on the north coast of Australia in 1847, or possibly late 1846? Mjroots ( talk) 06:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Above retrieved from Archive 147.
Further info has come to light. The ship may have been named Lord Auckland according to this report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 28 December 1847. Mjroots ( talk) 06:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I was wondering if someone at this project can help me with the protocol for obtaining pictures of service academy athletes and coaches? I know many government/military photos are free use. I work on college basketball (and some football) articles and these would be greatly enhanced by photos. I am interested in historical figures, but also recent names like Nick Welch, who was an All-American at the AFA a few years ago. For example, can I use this photo of him? Thanks for any advice you may have. Rikster2 ( talk) 12:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
This article should be of interest to this Wikiproject: The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of ‘Lost Victories’? by David Stahel.
He identifies Wikipedia (and this project specifically) as a safe haven for the myth of the Clean Wehrmacht. It is an interesting read and I think the key valid point is that Wikipedia has a tendency to compartmentalize topics and issues as way of scrubbing articles. So rather than put in details about atrocities into the articles of German generals, some editors will argue (deploying a level of wikilawyering that cannot be bested) that the information belongs not 'here' but in the article on the topic. This issue is not unique to articles on German generals--the child abuse scandal was repeatedly deleted from the main article on Pennsylvania State University. I think the article is behind a paywall but it would be great if there was some way to make it available to this wikiproject. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 11:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the identitiy of the WWII French minesweeper that became the tug Valiant post-war please? Mjroots ( talk) 12:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
In response to the recent ArbCom case on the German War Effort, I've boldly made an addition to the Military history content guide regarding biographies, as follows:
It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their proper political, social and ethical context. For example, biographies should detail what reliable sources say about a person's political views, and should cover any involvement or alleged involvement of the person in war crimes, if applicable.
Feel free to tweak it as you see fit, or raise issues with the addition here if you prefer. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
This now reads:
It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their proper military, political, social and ethical context. For example, the contribution individuals made to military campaigns should also be explained in a neutral way, including providing context for why they were there and what they were doing. Biographical articles should also detail what reliable sources say about a person's political views, and should cover any involvement or alleged involvement of the person in war crimes, if applicable.
Any other tweaks welcomed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I am thinking that too much emphasis is being placed on the "political context" for general advice. This is partly because of the reasons for making these changes (ie the GWE Arbcom case). The political context is probably more a construct of modern conflicts. It is also an element of the social context. Ideological context is perhaps better, in that it is broader than just political ideologies. It also captures religious and ethnic ideologies but it is still part of the social context. An ethical context is also part of the social context. Suggest: "placed into their proper military and social" but with further explanation of what constitutes the social context (political, religious, economic, ethical etc). The phrase: "including providing context for why they were there and what they were doing", seems (reads) a little trite. I don't think that it is capturing the intent it is meant to represent. I think that we want to say is something like: that the article should capture the social and military constructs of the "time"; how these shaped the individual and their actions; and in turn, how the individual influenced the military and social constructs.
All this, of course, presumes that such advice is applicable to the subject and that sources actually delve into these aspects. This advice may not be generally applicable and consequently not good general advice. What may be true for a senior commander may not be true for a private soldier notable for valor. Perhaps we need to contexturalise the advice rather than implying it is universally valid. Also, if the sources do not delve into these aspects, then we are creating an expectation that cannot be fulfilled.
As advice, "proper" is subjective. It lacks any definition of what that constitutes and therefore fails. Balanced might be better but is still subject to how an individual editor construes its meaning. I would agree with Peacemaker's concept of what this is but we need to capture and communicate this. I am not certain how this might be better phrased.
Finally, there is my pet hate. The role of history is to understand events (and people) within the constructs in which they occurred. Only then, can we gain an insight into the dynamics leading to the event. Only after this, should we compare and contrast the past with the present and if we do, the contemporary should be clearly distinguished and discernible from the contemporaneous. For example, in the nineteenth century, western cultures moralised on the "heathen savage". It would be just as wrong to moralise on nineteenth century western culture now. No insight is gained by applying contemporary social and ethical norms to another time and culture. However, after understanding the constructs of the time, we can have a better understanding of our present and of the human condition.
I support in principle, the intended changes but think we can do better. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC) of military operations, New iteration:
It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their wider military and social context. In a military sense, the contribution an individual made to a military campaign should be explained in a neutral way, including the wider context
forof military operations,and the person's actionsnot just the individual's combat decisions or actions. The social context should include, but is not limited to, how the individual fitted into the political, religious, economic, and ethical context of the time. Where high quality reliable sources refer to a person's political or ideological views these should be included. If an individual has been alleged to have been involved in breaches of the law of war, these allegations should also be included, along with the results of any legal action taken against them.
Thoughts? Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@ WP:MILHIST coordinators: and members, can we get a consensus position on the above addition to our content guideline please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
"It is very important that biographies of military personnel are placed into their proper political, social and ethical context", I am opposed to
" For example, biographies should detail what reliable sources say about a person's political views, and should cover any involvement or alleged involvement of the person in war crimes, if applicable.". We should follow what premier RSes write. For many military personnel - we don't have info (or have very scant info) on their political views and "alleged involvement of the person in war crimes" is often present in fringey conspiracy theory sites. We shouldn't be whitewashing Nazis (when good sources with "dirt" exist on the individuals) - however we should avoid forcing inclusion. Looking a present (and retired in the past 20 years) US military personnel - their political views are often simply unknown, and war crime allegations are the purview of highly polemic, and in some case conspiracy minded, outlets. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
support more or less. i do think though that we are going to have issues over what is sufficient context ... auntieruth (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC) @ WP:MILHIST coordinators: could someone who hasn't been involved in this discussion formally close this? I think it has been open long enough to get a range of views. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 not sure how to close a discussion, but I'll do it if you give me instructions.... auntieruth (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I have posted a request here to move the "People's Liberation Army Navy" page to "Chinese Navy". - wolf 20:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)/archive2 needs a couple more reviewers. If you have some free time, please help out and assess this article against the Featured Article criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
At Wikipedia SEAL Team 1 is also shown as SEAL Team One and as SEAL Team ONE. Thoughts anyone? Jerry Stockton ( talk) 02:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Aegidius; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Would WP:MIL be interested in WP:S2019? We are organizing a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first Moon landing and walk on July 21, 2019 (UTC). Many of the subjects we aim to target and populate on the Main Page are biographies of people with long and distinguished careers in the armed forces. We want to internationalize and diversify our reach to include the most notable contributors to the Space Race, many of whom are notable figures in the Russian and United States military. Please offer your thoughts. Also see most recent discussion at WT:DYK#Special occasion to mark the 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon --- Coffeeand crumbs 05:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a Good Topic Candidate within the scope of our project that could use some input. The topic covers the V bombers, and the review page is located here. Thanks. Parsecboy ( talk) 19:09, 10 September 2018 (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) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I came across this CIA article on Roderick Stephen Hall and his mission to the Brenner Pass while doing some work on the Axis war crimes in Italy article. Currently the Heinrich Andergassen article states "He was executed by Italy for his role in the Holocaust" but, according to the German Wikipedia article, he was executed by the Allies for the murder of Hall, as well as 6 other allied soldiers, alongside August Schiffer and Albert Storz. I haven't been able to verify this through reliable sources however. Has anybody come across a reliable source that could confirm this? Turismond ( talk) 04:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC at Template talk:US Special Operations Forces#RFC - should "Psychological Operations" be listed as a "type" under the Air Force and Navy?. -- Jpcase ( talk) 21:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone! Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The article lead currently reads The Mark 46 torpedo is the backbone of the United States Navy's lightweight anti-submarine warfare torpedo inventory, and is the current NATO standard. These aerial torpedoes are designed to attack high-performance submarines, and current, since September 1996,[3] variants, such as the Mark 46 Mod 5, were expected to remain in service until 2015. In 1989, a major upgrade program for the Mod 5 began to improve its shallow-water performance, resulting in the Mod 5A and Mod 5A(S). (my emphasis)
Well, were they retired three years ago, or are they still in use? This is embarrassing! Andrewa ( talk) 00:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Please see recent message from my talk page. Here. I'm a bit flabbergasted. — Maile ( talk) 00:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I've just written this article on an important Australian naval dockyard to fill a big gap that had gotten missed over the years - it built or worked on an awful lot of ships with articles. I'm more of a built heritage person, though and I don't know too much about ships, so I'd love it if anyone from here who does could take a look at it and fill in some gaps. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Are groups such as the Symbionese Liberation Army within the scope of this project? They do not seem to be part of military history in general. Kges1901 ( talk) 22:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"Hearst ... had been kidnapped by a group of armed radicals that billed themselves as the Symbionese Liberation Army, or SLA. Led by a hardened criminal named Donald DeFreeze, the SLA wanted nothing less than to incite a guerrilla war against the U.S. government and destroy what they called the “capitalist state.... They were, in short, a band of domestic terrorists."
Why was the Royal Danish Navy preventing ships of the Hanseatic cities from trading during the First Schleswig War? The Hanseatic cities, such as Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck, Stettin and Danzig were independent city states, and not part of the Kingdom of Prussia. Nonetheless, the Royal Danish Navy did capture merchant ships from these citie engaged in lawful trade. Mjroots ( talk) 08:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed on Amazon (U.S. and Australia) quite a few books now are through some sort of publishing source called "CreateSpace". Would these be unreliable due to the fact that it's not a reputable publishing company and secondary, the author could also be suspect. Any thoughts? Adamdaley ( talk) 06:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding merge/split suggestions for the Humvee manufacturing in China and Dongfeng Mengshi, although the latter could use a split to the Dongfeng EQ2050 and the Dongfeng CSK-131. Ominae ( talk) 02:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The compendiums of the Confederate Armies (by each state) by Stewart Sifakis reliable? Or are they reliable as the Union books, I have from ebookondisk.com if anyone remembers the discussion on my articles for artillery Connecticut. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone! Voting for the project coordinator election is now open. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. Please vote here by 23:59 UTC on 28 September! Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know what's happened to importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js');? There is something called Regex editor in its place. Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 19:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed on the
NORAD page that it states; "...the deputy commander is always a Canadian three-maple-leaf general
" (Lieutenant-general). I know that Canadian rank insignia use maple leafs (leaves?) instead of stars, like the US and other countries, but the UK doesn't use stars either, and you often hear UK general and flag officers referred to as "n-star" generals and admirals, even though UK rank
insignia use combinations of crowns, pips, and crossed swords & batons. Are Canadian general and flag officers always referred to as "n-maple-leaf" generals or admirals? Is the word "star" ever used in place of "maple leaf"? Thanks -
wolf 19:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate the reply, and effort to resolve, but again I gotta ask; are you referring to just the quote from NORAD page? Or suggesting something wider? While "three-maple-leaf
" General or Admiral sounds kind of... quirky, I again refer to the use of "n-star" Generals and Admirals in the UK Armed Forces, and while they don't have maple leafs (leaves?) as part of their rank insignia|, neither do they have stars like the US Armed Forces, yet the phrase is still used. In fact, many countries (especially Commonwealth) use variations of pips, crowns, swords and batons, like the UK Armed Forces, instead of stars, but many of these countries flag officers are referred to "1", "2" "3" or "4"-star officers. So do we need to go bigger here? Perhaps a proper RfC? Some written guideance? Thoughts anyone? -
wolf 03:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
A discussion on the possible deletion of HMS Incomparable has been opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Incomparable. All interested editors are invited to comment.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 14:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Are there any other Wiki-projects that have coordinators? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Preussen (1903) already has a couple of supports and needs an additional reviewer. Please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, there is a discussion at Talk:List of commanding officers of USS Nevada (BB-36)#Re PROD regarding whether or not to include a list of ship captains in a ship article. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the term "Psychological Operations" or PSYOP shouldn't be considered a proper noun. There are various units, found across different branches of the military, that use the term "Psychological Operations" in their names, such as the 2nd Psychological Operations Group and the 7th Psychological Operations Group - and those two specific units are obviously considered proper nouns. But there doesn't seem to be any specific subdivision of the US Military simply called "Psychological Operations".
Some PSYOP groups, such as 7th and 2nd that I just mentioned, are a part of United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, while others, such as the 4th Psychological Operations Group and the 8th Psychological Operations Group, are a part of 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne). Both of those "Commands" are subdivisions of the Army, and my understanding is that still other PSYOP groups are a part of the Navy and Air Force.
I know very, very little about military matters, so I can't say anything for certain - but I'm not seeing any reason for the term "Psychological Operations" to be treated as a proper noun, which would suggest that the article Psychological Operations (United States) should probably be moved to Psychological operations (United States). I don't want to move the article unless I know for certain though, so I'd like to hear from some people who are actually knowledgeable about this topic.
I opened a discussion about this over a week ago at Talk:Psychological Operations (United States), but I haven't received any responses. I also opened a discussion about this at the Humanities Reference Desk; you can read that here. The Reference Desk discussion was archived before any conclusion could be drawn. -- Jpcase ( talk) 13:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The Reference Desk discussion was archived before any conclusion could be drawn." - So that's your answer; there was no consensus to move, which should be the end of discussion. But, it seems you're not getting the response you want, at the RefDesk or the PsyOps talk page, and you are starting to WP:FORUMSHOP. (all this for an 'o'... ) - wolf 22:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
there doesn't appear to be any specific subdivision of the US Military called "Psychological Operations"" - You just named several, including an Army Command. Are you looking for some kind of Joint Command? There aren't many levels above Command level. How far up the Armed Forces hierarchy does it have to be for a big 'O'? - wolf 01:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Flightsoffancy is attempting to use a non-free image, File:Do17z 20mm.jpg, on the Dornier Do 17 and MG FF cannon articles under fair use claims. Any help from experts on fair use would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 04:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I found a list of the African-American Civil War Units that needed to be created. Can I have some help in locating that list? Adamdaley ( talk) 09:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to improve Ebensee concentration camp. Do you have advice on sources I should use or not use on the page? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 20:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Should war profiteering be included in articles on collaboration? Your opinions welcome at this discussion. François Robere ( talk) 21:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
One of at least three temporary battlegroups that fought during Operation Martlet and Operation Epsom, and was made up of units from the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich. It seems like a pointless article, in need of review. 172.96.34.206 ( talk) 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Any chance of a rollback to clear the vandalism? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 19:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't have rollback and when I tried to manually revert I found that I couldn't, hence the request. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 16:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I had rollback for a while but declined it over conflict of interest. Keith-264 ( talk) 23:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I've added much refs to HNLMS De Ruyter (1936). I can't figure out how to remove it from the 'needs more refs'. Can someone do it for me? Stuart ( talk) 14:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, just over from WP:Cricket. The above cricketer had a noted military career in the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, including a DSO in WWII. However, I seem to be able to find very little on his military service. The London Gazette wasn't all that helpful either. I wonder if I can leave this here for someone with a little more knowledge on where to look to expand his article? Apologies if this isn't the place to post this request! PinchHittingLeggy ( talk) 22:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
An RFC has begun at Talk:Tom_Crean_(explorer)#RFC_SEP-29-2018, an FA-status article governed by this project. The RFC concerns a COI edit request received from an editor who is author of a self-published book on the subject. Advance Thank you's to editors able to stop by and offer input. Spintendo 15:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
My first attempt to find out how to get rid has failed, can anyone suggest where to ask questions about this feature please? Thanks Keith-264 ( talk) 19:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone. The coordinator election has now concluded, with the result that the following were elected to the ten coordinator positions for Tranche XVIII: Hawkeye7, Ian Rose, Parsecboy, Sturmvogel_66, Auntieruth55, Kges1901, Zawed, Iazyges, Arius1998 and myself. Thanks to everyone who volunteered to serve, and to everyone who participated. The voting turnout this year was higher than we've had for around ten years. A special welcome to the coordinator team for new coordinators Kges1901 and Arius1998, and welcome back to Hawkeye7 and Sturmvogel_66. Thanks to AustralianRupert, Biblioworm, Cinderella157, HJ Mitchell, KCVelaga, The ed17 and TomStar81 for their service to the project over the last year, as well as to the continuing coordinators. And finally, TomStar81 has been unanimously elected as our third Coordinator Emeritus. Well done, Tom! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC) for the new coordinator team.
WikiProject Military history/Archive 147 | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
WikiProject Military history/Archive 147 |
---|
WikiProject Military history/Archive 147 | |
---|---|
{{{country}}} | |
Used for those deceased {{{use_dates}}} |
Why have they gone narrow? Keith-264 ( talk) 01:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Frietjes: I'd like the common width to be restored please; I think it looks better. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
<div>...</div>
containers while the infoboxes use <table>...</table>
. but, all four set the width of the outer container to "width:25.5em". if you are still seeing a difference, please tell me your OS/browser/skin. you can find your skin in
your preferences. a screen shot would be useful as well.
Frietjes (
talk) 14:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)I have been noticing a number of images of senior U.S. military leaders being cropped (primarily members of the Joint Chiefs, service staffs, and senior enlisted advisers), with the affect of removing awards, ranks, and other badges that could be quite useful to the reader. This is all on a divers number of pages, so I figured a centralized discussion could be started here on weather the MILHIST community agrees with these changes or what the opinions out there are. Garuda28 ( talk) 03:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's something that proves that cropping gives no benefit. The two images are set to frame sizes that makes the individual's face identical in size in article space. Ergo, there is no benefit to cropping, it doesn't serve a purpose, it's an artificial form of photo manipulation to draw a viewer's attention to a particular area of the original photo. One could argue that this was a POV-pushing exercise, since it forces readers to only see what the photo editor wants them to see rather than a wider scope of original information, i.e. medals, ranks, etc. IMO, this kind of practice is unencyclopedic and should not be permitted. Ed17 said "Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia, remember, and those medals should be covered in prose". Yeah, that's true. We could also use prose to say the individual has brown hair, blue eyes and a nice smile, in the interests of "general interest". However, I feel that most people studying history also want to see things for themselves... that's why we go to museums and visit graveyards, perform reenactments, or collect and maintain historical artefacts. Because history is about seeing, not just reading boring black-and-white modern textbook interpretations of the past all the time. Cropping a soldier's uniform is paramount to hiding his proven role in history from the public, limiting them to only reading about it instead of giving them both a visual and textual source and manner of seeing his awards. However you see it, support for cropped images like this is backwards-thinking... Wikipedia isn't short of space or bandwidth, and neither are most viewers when it comes to saving loading a few KB of extra data or pixels on the screen, to get the full picture without questionable cropping practices. Commons also has the ability to tag "other versions" so if someone really needs to see right up the individual's nose, they can always find a link to the cropped copy there. — Marcus( talk) 09:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If a user needs to look at a photo to see relevant and pertinent information the problem lies with the text of the article, not a cropped photo. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
So just came across some interesting guidance at the Wikipedia:Image use policy#Cropping that states "Within reason, crop an image to remove irrelevant areas. But do not "throw away information"." I would argue that the full image provides more information at a quick glance (even if it is only to a portion of the reader-bases). Furthermore, since these are used for military positions with unique ranks, I would argue that the rank is an integral part of the main image. The intent is not to say things that are not written (and perhaps we need to write more down anyways), but rather to supplement the information in the text. Garuda28 ( talk) 00:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Properly constructed "ribbon racks" in the article would be a big help here, though I realize they've been shot down and are presumably being removed." - Say what? - wolf 15:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Just to add that I agree with PM67 and Ian Rose; sourcing is paramount. But that said, if the awards are reliably supported, then I believe the ribbon rack, with accompanying table, is a good visual representation of the medals awarded to a military BLP subject. Now, I say this with experience primarily from editing US military BLPs, but I don't see why this couldn't apply to any other military BLP subject of another nationality. Most, if not all, other militaries have ribbon racks on their uniforms. I think this is preferable to either the basic list in the awards section, and/or the condensed and collapsed list in the infobox. (JMHO) - wolf 06:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petropavlovsk-class battleship/archive1 needs more reviewers or otherwise will be archived. If y'all are available, please help assist this article in its journey to Featured status. Thanks, Kges1901 ( talk) 19:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have the time to look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Territorial_Force/archive1? The article seems to be bearing up well but could do with "...at least one more comprehensive set of comments...". Thanks. Factotem ( talk) 07:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Central National Committee of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia#Requested move 24 September 2018. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Is necrometrics.com (and the book for it) - apparently written by Matthew White (historian) - a reliable source for numbers of casualties? The Wiki article and the PR comments on Amazon describe him as popular historian. It seems odd to base such complex and controversial numbers to a popular history source. According to his own website, White is a librarian with only "a couple of years of college" and no listed academic degree. If the source is not reliable, it would be great to remove it from Wikipedia as it is currently used 120+ times in various mainspace articles and lists. GermanJoe ( talk) 10:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There is an ongoing move request within the scope of this WikiProject at Talk:Psychological Operations (United States)#Requested move 25 September 2018. -- Jpcase ( talk) 12:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Just for the records, before the Arbitration Committee Elections of December 2018 begin there already is an active RfC in which election procedures and changes, inluding e.g. percentage of votes needed for being elected or the total number of arbitrators, are being discussed and also endorsed and voted for (or against). If I see it correctly it will be closed soon so maybe it is worth a look for those interested in that election. ... GELongstreet ( talk) 12:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Editors may wish to comment on this proposal on the article's talk page Lyndaship ( talk) 07:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
.. Need assessment, Need assessment as lists, Need task force assigned, Need project tag fixed and Need work on grammar are all without a backlog! Great work all! Eddie891 Talk Work 12:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
To mark the centenary of Johnson's VC action today I've had a piece published on The National Archives (United Kingdom) blog looking at his life and service https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/tommys-war-w-h-johnson-bellringer-vc/
The references I've used are basically included on the profile on Lives of the First World War that I've been building up in parallel https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/2128506. There are quite a few contemporary newspaper reports etc listed under "External Evidence" on that. I feel it would be a conflict of interest for me to edit Johnson's article here based on these, but others may like to flesh out the article/ The Lives profile does link back to the Wikipedia article, but hasn't actually been used for any facts. David Underdown ( talk) 10:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Our Polygonal fort article has had a "multiple issues" header for a few years now. I thought it could do with a complete rewrite; the result of my labours is at User:Alansplodge/sandbox/Polygonal fort. I would appreciate any comments.
I have never rewritten an article before, so if the above meets with your collective approval, some advice on the way forward would be helpful. Alansplodge ( talk) 20:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I´m writing as to inquire about the status of our special projects. 3 of the 4 had given themselves a deadline - 2 of those, Operation Brothers at War and Operation Normandy, have been reached years ago. The third, Operation Great War Centennial, will be reached (more or less) in six weeks. I find it suboptimal to have them displayed prominenty on the main page as what might appear as active failures, as none reached the set goals within their deadline. Or worse, a sign of project stagnation as nobody cared enough to update anything. Just doesn`t give a good first impression, a problem that plaques many projects. Maybe that could be improved by changing text or position (e.g. shifting below the taskforces). Or the status itself as they are essentially over thanks to the deadlines, if not changed. Admittedly a rather superficial, and of course just my personal, point of view of course. ... GELongstreet ( talk) 22:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Navops47 has done an amazing amount of very valuable work, now currently mostly on the Royal Navy in the twentieth century, but previously on fighting our recentist WP:SYSTEMICBIAS by working on the early English and Royal Navies.
However, I and other editors have had to continually come along later and restore titles of RN appointments, units, and formations to what the sources say. Navops47 is continually capitalising Command and adding it to unit titles, thus 'British Aegean Squadron Command' instead of what the sources say, which would be either Aegean Squadron or British Aegean Squadron.
I would kindly request you Navops47 to stop this practice, and follow the most reliable sources more closely. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The article, Battle of the Crater, has undergone a significant number of edits since it was assessed as B-Class (in 2006), including the addition of sources (at least one of which has been reported by reviewers outside of Wikipedia to contain factual errors) and the addition of a war crimes subsection, the wording of which has undergone multiple changes. At a minimum, I believe the article needs to be reassessed, but it might also benefit from having one or more of Milhist's most experienced editors perform a thorough review (and revision if incorrect information is found in the article). 47thPennVols ( talk) 20:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I just passed German torpedo boat Albatros to GA a day ago, and I wonder if I could FAC it. Are there any problems that would fail it? L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 16:01, 6 October 2018 (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) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm having trouble assessing Talk:German torpedo boat T23 as C-class. I've set the class= parameter to C and it displays as start-class. Could anyone help me out? Same for Talk:German torpedo boat T22 and Talk:German torpedo boat T24. L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 15:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)