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. |
This probably came up before. Having heard several arguments already, in consultation with Kirill I would like to ask for a consensus on a consistent Project-wide approach.
I am working on an Eastern Front project that will link to many existing Eastern Front articles. Currently throughout many Eastern Front articles I have visited there is no consistency to the approach of reference terminology used for the states, organisations and armed Services concerned.
The subjects are
Lexical ambiguity and
Semantic ambiguity
.
'Germans' is probably the worst because sometimes it refers to actions where non-Germans also participated, but certainly does not refer to ALL Germans as an ethnic group. Often by 'Germans' the command decision is meant, while at other times the reference is to actions of combat units. Sometimes one paragraph refers to the ground troops, and in the following paragraph (if one knows the context) it refers to Luftwaffe. There are also references to Germany, Nazi Germany, Axis, Third Reich, and just Nazis. In the context of military operations I think the use of 'Germany' is way too general. In the sense of referring to the state, Wikipedia elsewhere confirms that the English contemporary term for Germany was the
German Reich, with Nazi Germany being a term created by
Allied propaganda. Third Reich was on the other hand created by Goebbels' propaganda machine. Nazis only refers to the Nazi Party and its members, who were very few in number, significantly concentrated in the organisation of the
Gestapo and the
SS.
The same applies to other non-German speaking participants on the Axis side.
The Soviet side is similarly, if less to affected (I'll spare you the details).
Personally I would prefer a more actual approach as a solution. I could be accused of
ambiguity intolerance, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to be authoritative :O) so lets not subject the readers to “tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat.” :o) It certainly avoids
editing wars through proactive premeditative authoring :o)
Proposals
I would actually go so far as to suggest this be included in the Style Guide as it helps to Categorize the articles also.
I also appreciate that Germany is the more commonly used term, but what is the
level of ambiguity and
abstraction that this applies to? Maybe when talking about
industrial capacity during WW2, or use of rail for
military logistics, but surely not at campaign and battle level. I would suggest that perhaps there is less imperative to be abstract in military history die to the
hierarchical nature of events we describe in the articles, and this description should be portrayed appropriately.
Proposal
In any case, I look forward to responses and consensus whatever it is. Naturally I would prefer the more factual and precise approach where the information is known.
It certainly avoids {{Confusing|date=December 2007}}
--
Mrg3105 (
talk) 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
is perfectly appropriate for an article on 16th-century warfare; historians dealing with the period ubiquitously refer to the nationalities of troops rather than their (typically unknown or nonexistent) organizational arrangement.The French infantry—mostly Gascons—had meanwhile started down the slope towards Sanseverino. Montluc, noting that the disorder of the Italians had forced them to a standstill, suggested that De Tais attack Madruzzo's advancing column of landsknechts instead; this advice was accepted, and the French formation turned left in an attempt to strike the landsknechts in the flank. Madruzzo responded by splitting his column into two separate portions, one of which moved to intercept the French while the other continued up the slope towards the Swiss waiting at the crest.
However what about in the “Combatant” section of the article where the nationalities of the countries involved are named, should we use “Germany” or “German Reich” etc etc? Bearing in mind that I have always kept a more detailed list of units in the “Strength” section along with stats etc -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Without getting into the specific matter of WWII terminology—other people are far better qualified than I am to debate the finer points of that—I'd like to propose the following as an initial draft for a general statement on the issue:
It is admittedly brief, but I think it captures the overall point without getting bogged down in potentially controversial matters of specific usage. Comments? Kirill 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just done a GA assessment on the article Þingalið. It's mainly OK, although short and possibly a bit pro- in its tone. My main concern with it is a feeling, and I can't really put it any higher than that, that it may be an OR synthesis. I've given some of my reasoning here. I suppose my question is: was the Þingalið really a largely Scandanavian standing army in the employ of the English kings for around 50 years? Grateful if someone with some background in this area could set me straight. Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 14:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The following was raised in December and no one responded to it and then someone quite rudely archived it:
Is this something we can address? I also note a disturbing trend towards laziness in using the abbreviation "WWII" in articles; seems rather unencylopedic when sprinkled throughout sentences. 139.48.25.61 ( talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It's been quite a while since I've touched bases over here, so dropping by to mention some recent work. I've been surveying huge numbers of historic photographs and nominating the best ones for FPC. My workshop page is at User:Durova/Landmark images. A lot of significant material deals with military history, so please give me a heads up if you know of a high quality military history image at least 1000px on its largest dimension. I'll address artifacts and scratches and other flaws if it has potential.
Been spending most of my writing time lately with the textile arts project, which is seriously undermanned. Would anyone be interested in a joint project drive to raise Bayeux Tapestry from B-class to FA? Durova Charge! 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't cross the ethical line about canvassing: a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt in Rough Rider uniform is up for FPC. Durova Charge! 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In a roundabout way, I've come to make some rather substantial edits to Psychological Operations (United States). In the CIA fracas, even some of the people most offended by not concluding the CIA is the Dark Side of the Force liked a section I put in, defining the colors of propaganda. It was suggested, in a friendly way, that the material might move to the psychological operations page and be linked from a summary in the CIA article.
Incidentally, there is a fairly recently declassified volume of the Foreign Relations of the United States series, "1950-1955, The Intelligence Community", which contains a number of historically key documents that had been classified until very recently. People here may want to look at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/truman/c24687.htm
Anyway, I think I made significant headway on psychological operations, more by adding material and definitions than taking out things. Well -- I did take out the reference to psychological operations at the Waco siege, because I really don't think that kind of law enforcement exercise, fiasco that it was, is simply in the scope of the military, diplomatic, and intelligence/special operations topics usually associated with psychological operations, even as a subset of information operations.
It could definitely stand some additions in the history part, especially in WWII. When I thought about it, however, some of the most fascinating operations were British, and this was defined as a US article. Given the current debate over UK vs. US nomenclature for what I shall call Big Mistake Two, I found that a bit amusing.
Apropos of that period, I once had what I would have sworn was an MIT Press history of psychological operations in The Time That Has No Agreed Name. In particular, there was a really excellent section on making use of Japanese cultural anthropology during the Battle of Okinawa. I cannot find this book in any search I've done. My recollection is that it was a fairly thick trade paperback with black print on a white cover. Am I bringing up false memories, or does anyone know the book? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 06:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The Finnish War is a B-class article about a short war close to the North Pole. But for Sweden this was the last major war, and a shocking experience, as Russia grabbed the eastern half of the Swedish kingdom and formed the Grand Duchy of Finland. For Finland it was the roots of national independence, with the 19th century movement leading up to breaking away from Russia in 1917. It all started on February 21, 1808, so this year will be a great chance to improve the related articles. I think we should try to coordinate this activity on the English, Swedish, Finnish and Russian Wikipedia. The war was short enough, that we can reenact it in real time, day by day, over the course of 2008. It should be possible to synchronize this with media attention given to the anniversary. Should we use the talk:Finnish War page for coordination? -- LA2 ( talk) 07:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, guys! I'd like to draw some attention to this article, as a dispute over its name threatens to go out of hand (and into offtopic) there. The article was originally named "Battle of Romania (1944)", but after a sound proposal was renamed to "Iassy-Kishinev Offensive". Then a user renamed it to "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive" (without a discussion) citing the current names of the cities involved. A proposal (by me) to rename it to "Jassy-Kishinev Operation", which I consider the proper English name (based on the majority of English sources), was unexpectedly met with a heated debate. The main arguments of sides are as follows:
Note1: As references to this operation are somewhat obscure, I would really appreciate some informed opinion from the regulars of this page.
Note2: The discussion is currently taking a heated tone, so I would like to ask anyone who decides to post there to keep cool in advance. If anyone would also like to improve the article in question - all the better!
The relevant discussion is located here. Also of note is the original renaming proposal. Thanks. -- Illythr ( talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Glorious First of June is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone could give out an award. Wikipedia sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.148.226 ( talk) 06:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there is a proposal to rename Bombing of Dresden in World War II to Bombing of Dresden for the sake of simplicity. If you have any interest in this, your comments would be appreciated here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone with more math skills then I please check this edit and make sure that I got everything right. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I came across this pic which describes the soldier on the left as being Japanese. However I recall reading in Stephen Ambrose's D-Day that US forces captured some Koreans who were in the German army. IIRC, they got into the situation as follows: they were conscripted by the Japanese military and were captured by the Soviets when the USSR and Japan fought each other in 1939. They were conscripted by the Soviets, then captured by the Germans in 1941 or afterwards, then in turn conscripted into the German army and posted to Normandy. So I'm wondering if the description might be wrong and there's a stronger possibility that the man in the photo may be Korean. BrokenSphere Msg me 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Here [1] somebody posted the following about this photo:
The name of the soldier in this photo is Kyoungjong Yang who was born in Shin Euijoo, Northwestern Korea on March 3, 1920. He was conscripted to the Kwantung army in 1938 and captured by the Soviets in Nomonhan and captured again by Germans in Ukraine in the summer of 1943, maybe in the battle of Kharkov, and captured finally by Americans in Utah beach, Normandy on June 6, 1944.
He was freed from a POW camp in Britain on May, 1945 and moved and settled in America in 1947. He lived near the Northwestern Univ. in Illinois until he died on April 7, 1992. He lived as an ordinary US citizen without telling his unbelievable life story even to his two sons and one daughter.
His story was revealed by an article of ‘Weekly Korea’ on Dec. 6th, 2002, which became a big topic in the Korean society here at the time. http://search.hankooki.com/weeks/weeks_view.php?terms=%C6%F7%B7%CE&path=hankooki1%2Fwhan%2F200212%2Fw2002120614100061 510.htm
His surprising story will be told in a new movie which is now being made in the United States. The title of this movie is ‘A POW in Normandy’ and will focus on the real story of a Korean POW(Kyoungjong Yang) and a US soldier who helps him. It is said that the budget for this movie will amount to more than 40 million dollars. Bukvoed ( talk) 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Based on some suggestions from Mrg3105, I've created a prototype auxiliary infobox to use with named operations as {{ operational plan}}. It's designed to be used either in conjunction with {{ Infobox Military Conflict}} or alone.
Feedback would be very appreciated! Kirill 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at this and see if "stalemate" is still appropriate or not? I am just unsure. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as we've had a number of proposed guidelines from various editors that haven't achieved the needed consensus to be part of the (enforceable) style guide, I'm wondering if it would be useful to create a page (or set of pages) within the project for essays containing editors' personal views on guidelines, best practices, terminology, etc. These wouldn't actually be binding, obviously; but I think it would be convenient to have them in one place for other editors to read, should they desire to do so.
Would this be something worthwhile to set up? Kirill 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just getting started, after being frozen for awhile. Not sure why, but I can access the pages now. I would like to help with military aviation. I need to learn the rules though. Where should I start reading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMancarelli ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Italian War of 1542–1546 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I started by expanding the Farewell Dossier article from some brief mentions in the CIA articles, and I actually think it's in decent shape.
Perhaps not knowing when I should leave things alone, I tried to update the rather sparse TECHINT article, both in terms of conventional "tactical" technical intelligence, but also dealing with national-level things such as the Farewell Dossier. At this point, I'm not sure that the strategic and technical work in the same article, and would like opinions. If the strategic should go somewhere else, there's no obvious place. It involves intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination, so doesn't fit neatly into the Intelligence Cycle series.
Thoughts? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 03:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Polish Navy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla ( talk) 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I join you people? What should I do before I can join? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramtashaniku ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ehm, thanx. Thanks a lot, really. 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramtashaniku ( talk • contribs)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this project's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Shining Path and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 19:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, do people find the list of campaignboxes useful? It doesn't seem to be very well-maintained (mostly because trying to keep track of hundreds of templates by hand is quite a bother); so I'm wondering if there's actually any benefit to trying to do so, or if we could just dispense with the list and use categories and Special:Whatlinkshere instead. Kirill 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to start using these in a few weeks, to look forward to all your template creations. Thank you-- mrg3105 mrg3105 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for United States Army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ted W. Lawson, Dean Davenport, Charles McClure, Robert Cleaver, and David Thatcher all currently exist as standalone articles and are all currently stub except for Lawson. Since these men's notability largely lies in being crewmembers on the Ruptured Duck I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to merge all of them into that article with the exception of Lawson, as he is notable as the author of Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo which was also adapted into a film starring Spencer Tracy. -- BrokenSphere Msg me 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The List of Liberty ships by hull number articles were nominated for deletion on 8 January. Any thoughts can be expressed at the entry at AfD. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Cold War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for United States Army Special Forces is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans#Confederate States Army. Could a few editors take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input? Thanks. Sf46 ( talk) 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been coming across Military History articles that self-advertise that they "incorporate text from" a given source. This seems like a pretty crummy practice to me, personally. It contravenes the practices that have evolved, embodied in WP:REF and WP:CITE#HOW. When material is pasted in from another source, whether or not that source is public domain, it should be sourced properly. That includes: If it is copied word-for-word, it should be in quotes or in one of the block quote formats that are available. If a student submitted a paper that included copied text without putting it in quotes and crediting the actual words written by someone else, that would be termed plagiarism, and the student would often get a failing grade for the assignment and/or the course. doncram ( talk) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I added milder comments along these lines to several articles recently, and downrated them because as I stated they included copied text; I am somewhat puzzled why Nobunaga24 has seen fit to restore their higher ratings without commenting why. These articles include: James R. Allen, Duquesne Spy Ring, Arnold Air Force Base. Specifically i feel these should fail the B-Class-1 evaluation of appropriate sourcing within WP:HIST. Is it policy here somehow to allow copied material, and give high ratings for it? doncram ( talk) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I do fully understand that Federal government webpages may be in the public domain, so copying from them is not copyright violation, per se. This is about proper referencing, avoiding the appearance of plagiarim, and working sensibly towards higher quality of the articles. Keeping track of sources by keeping quotes in quotation marks is an essential part of writing a good article. It is very painful to go back and try to refigure where an article got which supposed fact from, later, so that the article can pass higher level Good Article or FAC review. doncram ( talk) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I have invested some time into editing the James R. Allen article now, both adding new information and sources, and setting aside in block quotes the copied-in text from the official U.S.A.F. biography, which was and is the bulk of this article. (By the way, I note that the official biography does not mention his superintendancy of the United States Air Force Academy included the first admission of women to the academy. Simply by the timing of his departure from that position one year later, I think it is possible he was embroiled in controversy over that, either as a supporter or an opponent, as a competent administrator or as a negligent/obstructionist one, but the official bio skates by that entirely.) I think the article, before and now, should be rated stub. The extent of wikipedia editor-written material is only stub length, before and now. Before, there was uncredited long passage pasted from that one external source; now there is essentially the same long passage pasted in but giving full credit (by block quoting). Either way, it is essentially a stub plus an external link. That is a stub, in my view. Thank you Nobunaga24 and others who have visited the 3 articles and reconsidered their ratings. Now that it is laid bare how little is in this article other than copied text, does that change any of your views? sincerely, doncram ( talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has been rescoped to be just the assault phase (thought this was Operation Jupiter?) - I think this is incorrect. The actions to Sept 1944 are now in Normandy Campaign. I've added a comment at Talk:Battle of Normandy#Article Name. I'd appreciate more knowledgeable heads than mine. Folks at 137 ( talk) 08:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Has just passed FPC on Commons. Please ping me if you know of other potential candidates. I do restorations. Cheers, Durova Charge! 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Matanikau Offensive is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please help expand it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Listing current military-related material:
Durova Charge! 07:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 10:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved the Ontos to M50 Ontos to stick with the usual standard I've seen of AFV articles being titled by their designation, then name. Jtrainor ( talk) 03:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Operation Camargue is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have compiled additional info into the Parrott rifle article, including an info chart on the various guns themselves (I used only Union models). I can't locate range, munitions, and size/weight for a few pieces, though. Any chance someone has that information handy? Thanks! -- BizMgr ( talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, our articles on these siege engines are very bad. It appears that the onager and mangonel are the exect same thing, yet they have two seperate articles. They don't tell the casual reader what the difference between them is, and I don't know so I can't fix them. Just what is the difference? Also, I requested some diagrams from the greenspun illustration project here. Others might find that project very useful for drawings of guns and vehicles.-- Phoenix - wiki 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Two new nominations (both here and Commons):
Durova Charge! 04:10, 20 January 2008 (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. |
This probably came up before. Having heard several arguments already, in consultation with Kirill I would like to ask for a consensus on a consistent Project-wide approach.
I am working on an Eastern Front project that will link to many existing Eastern Front articles. Currently throughout many Eastern Front articles I have visited there is no consistency to the approach of reference terminology used for the states, organisations and armed Services concerned.
The subjects are
Lexical ambiguity and
Semantic ambiguity
.
'Germans' is probably the worst because sometimes it refers to actions where non-Germans also participated, but certainly does not refer to ALL Germans as an ethnic group. Often by 'Germans' the command decision is meant, while at other times the reference is to actions of combat units. Sometimes one paragraph refers to the ground troops, and in the following paragraph (if one knows the context) it refers to Luftwaffe. There are also references to Germany, Nazi Germany, Axis, Third Reich, and just Nazis. In the context of military operations I think the use of 'Germany' is way too general. In the sense of referring to the state, Wikipedia elsewhere confirms that the English contemporary term for Germany was the
German Reich, with Nazi Germany being a term created by
Allied propaganda. Third Reich was on the other hand created by Goebbels' propaganda machine. Nazis only refers to the Nazi Party and its members, who were very few in number, significantly concentrated in the organisation of the
Gestapo and the
SS.
The same applies to other non-German speaking participants on the Axis side.
The Soviet side is similarly, if less to affected (I'll spare you the details).
Personally I would prefer a more actual approach as a solution. I could be accused of
ambiguity intolerance, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to be authoritative :O) so lets not subject the readers to “tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat.” :o) It certainly avoids
editing wars through proactive premeditative authoring :o)
Proposals
I would actually go so far as to suggest this be included in the Style Guide as it helps to Categorize the articles also.
I also appreciate that Germany is the more commonly used term, but what is the
level of ambiguity and
abstraction that this applies to? Maybe when talking about
industrial capacity during WW2, or use of rail for
military logistics, but surely not at campaign and battle level. I would suggest that perhaps there is less imperative to be abstract in military history die to the
hierarchical nature of events we describe in the articles, and this description should be portrayed appropriately.
Proposal
In any case, I look forward to responses and consensus whatever it is. Naturally I would prefer the more factual and precise approach where the information is known.
It certainly avoids {{Confusing|date=December 2007}}
--
Mrg3105 (
talk) 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
is perfectly appropriate for an article on 16th-century warfare; historians dealing with the period ubiquitously refer to the nationalities of troops rather than their (typically unknown or nonexistent) organizational arrangement.The French infantry—mostly Gascons—had meanwhile started down the slope towards Sanseverino. Montluc, noting that the disorder of the Italians had forced them to a standstill, suggested that De Tais attack Madruzzo's advancing column of landsknechts instead; this advice was accepted, and the French formation turned left in an attempt to strike the landsknechts in the flank. Madruzzo responded by splitting his column into two separate portions, one of which moved to intercept the French while the other continued up the slope towards the Swiss waiting at the crest.
However what about in the “Combatant” section of the article where the nationalities of the countries involved are named, should we use “Germany” or “German Reich” etc etc? Bearing in mind that I have always kept a more detailed list of units in the “Strength” section along with stats etc -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Without getting into the specific matter of WWII terminology—other people are far better qualified than I am to debate the finer points of that—I'd like to propose the following as an initial draft for a general statement on the issue:
It is admittedly brief, but I think it captures the overall point without getting bogged down in potentially controversial matters of specific usage. Comments? Kirill 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just done a GA assessment on the article Þingalið. It's mainly OK, although short and possibly a bit pro- in its tone. My main concern with it is a feeling, and I can't really put it any higher than that, that it may be an OR synthesis. I've given some of my reasoning here. I suppose my question is: was the Þingalið really a largely Scandanavian standing army in the employ of the English kings for around 50 years? Grateful if someone with some background in this area could set me straight. Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 14:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The following was raised in December and no one responded to it and then someone quite rudely archived it:
Is this something we can address? I also note a disturbing trend towards laziness in using the abbreviation "WWII" in articles; seems rather unencylopedic when sprinkled throughout sentences. 139.48.25.61 ( talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It's been quite a while since I've touched bases over here, so dropping by to mention some recent work. I've been surveying huge numbers of historic photographs and nominating the best ones for FPC. My workshop page is at User:Durova/Landmark images. A lot of significant material deals with military history, so please give me a heads up if you know of a high quality military history image at least 1000px on its largest dimension. I'll address artifacts and scratches and other flaws if it has potential.
Been spending most of my writing time lately with the textile arts project, which is seriously undermanned. Would anyone be interested in a joint project drive to raise Bayeux Tapestry from B-class to FA? Durova Charge! 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't cross the ethical line about canvassing: a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt in Rough Rider uniform is up for FPC. Durova Charge! 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In a roundabout way, I've come to make some rather substantial edits to Psychological Operations (United States). In the CIA fracas, even some of the people most offended by not concluding the CIA is the Dark Side of the Force liked a section I put in, defining the colors of propaganda. It was suggested, in a friendly way, that the material might move to the psychological operations page and be linked from a summary in the CIA article.
Incidentally, there is a fairly recently declassified volume of the Foreign Relations of the United States series, "1950-1955, The Intelligence Community", which contains a number of historically key documents that had been classified until very recently. People here may want to look at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/truman/c24687.htm
Anyway, I think I made significant headway on psychological operations, more by adding material and definitions than taking out things. Well -- I did take out the reference to psychological operations at the Waco siege, because I really don't think that kind of law enforcement exercise, fiasco that it was, is simply in the scope of the military, diplomatic, and intelligence/special operations topics usually associated with psychological operations, even as a subset of information operations.
It could definitely stand some additions in the history part, especially in WWII. When I thought about it, however, some of the most fascinating operations were British, and this was defined as a US article. Given the current debate over UK vs. US nomenclature for what I shall call Big Mistake Two, I found that a bit amusing.
Apropos of that period, I once had what I would have sworn was an MIT Press history of psychological operations in The Time That Has No Agreed Name. In particular, there was a really excellent section on making use of Japanese cultural anthropology during the Battle of Okinawa. I cannot find this book in any search I've done. My recollection is that it was a fairly thick trade paperback with black print on a white cover. Am I bringing up false memories, or does anyone know the book? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 06:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The Finnish War is a B-class article about a short war close to the North Pole. But for Sweden this was the last major war, and a shocking experience, as Russia grabbed the eastern half of the Swedish kingdom and formed the Grand Duchy of Finland. For Finland it was the roots of national independence, with the 19th century movement leading up to breaking away from Russia in 1917. It all started on February 21, 1808, so this year will be a great chance to improve the related articles. I think we should try to coordinate this activity on the English, Swedish, Finnish and Russian Wikipedia. The war was short enough, that we can reenact it in real time, day by day, over the course of 2008. It should be possible to synchronize this with media attention given to the anniversary. Should we use the talk:Finnish War page for coordination? -- LA2 ( talk) 07:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, guys! I'd like to draw some attention to this article, as a dispute over its name threatens to go out of hand (and into offtopic) there. The article was originally named "Battle of Romania (1944)", but after a sound proposal was renamed to "Iassy-Kishinev Offensive". Then a user renamed it to "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive" (without a discussion) citing the current names of the cities involved. A proposal (by me) to rename it to "Jassy-Kishinev Operation", which I consider the proper English name (based on the majority of English sources), was unexpectedly met with a heated debate. The main arguments of sides are as follows:
Note1: As references to this operation are somewhat obscure, I would really appreciate some informed opinion from the regulars of this page.
Note2: The discussion is currently taking a heated tone, so I would like to ask anyone who decides to post there to keep cool in advance. If anyone would also like to improve the article in question - all the better!
The relevant discussion is located here. Also of note is the original renaming proposal. Thanks. -- Illythr ( talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Glorious First of June is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone could give out an award. Wikipedia sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.148.226 ( talk) 06:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there is a proposal to rename Bombing of Dresden in World War II to Bombing of Dresden for the sake of simplicity. If you have any interest in this, your comments would be appreciated here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone with more math skills then I please check this edit and make sure that I got everything right. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I came across this pic which describes the soldier on the left as being Japanese. However I recall reading in Stephen Ambrose's D-Day that US forces captured some Koreans who were in the German army. IIRC, they got into the situation as follows: they were conscripted by the Japanese military and were captured by the Soviets when the USSR and Japan fought each other in 1939. They were conscripted by the Soviets, then captured by the Germans in 1941 or afterwards, then in turn conscripted into the German army and posted to Normandy. So I'm wondering if the description might be wrong and there's a stronger possibility that the man in the photo may be Korean. BrokenSphere Msg me 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Here [1] somebody posted the following about this photo:
The name of the soldier in this photo is Kyoungjong Yang who was born in Shin Euijoo, Northwestern Korea on March 3, 1920. He was conscripted to the Kwantung army in 1938 and captured by the Soviets in Nomonhan and captured again by Germans in Ukraine in the summer of 1943, maybe in the battle of Kharkov, and captured finally by Americans in Utah beach, Normandy on June 6, 1944.
He was freed from a POW camp in Britain on May, 1945 and moved and settled in America in 1947. He lived near the Northwestern Univ. in Illinois until he died on April 7, 1992. He lived as an ordinary US citizen without telling his unbelievable life story even to his two sons and one daughter.
His story was revealed by an article of ‘Weekly Korea’ on Dec. 6th, 2002, which became a big topic in the Korean society here at the time. http://search.hankooki.com/weeks/weeks_view.php?terms=%C6%F7%B7%CE&path=hankooki1%2Fwhan%2F200212%2Fw2002120614100061 510.htm
His surprising story will be told in a new movie which is now being made in the United States. The title of this movie is ‘A POW in Normandy’ and will focus on the real story of a Korean POW(Kyoungjong Yang) and a US soldier who helps him. It is said that the budget for this movie will amount to more than 40 million dollars. Bukvoed ( talk) 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Based on some suggestions from Mrg3105, I've created a prototype auxiliary infobox to use with named operations as {{ operational plan}}. It's designed to be used either in conjunction with {{ Infobox Military Conflict}} or alone.
Feedback would be very appreciated! Kirill 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at this and see if "stalemate" is still appropriate or not? I am just unsure. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as we've had a number of proposed guidelines from various editors that haven't achieved the needed consensus to be part of the (enforceable) style guide, I'm wondering if it would be useful to create a page (or set of pages) within the project for essays containing editors' personal views on guidelines, best practices, terminology, etc. These wouldn't actually be binding, obviously; but I think it would be convenient to have them in one place for other editors to read, should they desire to do so.
Would this be something worthwhile to set up? Kirill 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just getting started, after being frozen for awhile. Not sure why, but I can access the pages now. I would like to help with military aviation. I need to learn the rules though. Where should I start reading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMancarelli ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Italian War of 1542–1546 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I started by expanding the Farewell Dossier article from some brief mentions in the CIA articles, and I actually think it's in decent shape.
Perhaps not knowing when I should leave things alone, I tried to update the rather sparse TECHINT article, both in terms of conventional "tactical" technical intelligence, but also dealing with national-level things such as the Farewell Dossier. At this point, I'm not sure that the strategic and technical work in the same article, and would like opinions. If the strategic should go somewhere else, there's no obvious place. It involves intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination, so doesn't fit neatly into the Intelligence Cycle series.
Thoughts? Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 03:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Polish Navy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla ( talk) 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I join you people? What should I do before I can join? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramtashaniku ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ehm, thanx. Thanks a lot, really. 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramtashaniku ( talk • contribs)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this project's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Shining Path and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 19:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, do people find the list of campaignboxes useful? It doesn't seem to be very well-maintained (mostly because trying to keep track of hundreds of templates by hand is quite a bother); so I'm wondering if there's actually any benefit to trying to do so, or if we could just dispense with the list and use categories and Special:Whatlinkshere instead. Kirill 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to start using these in a few weeks, to look forward to all your template creations. Thank you-- mrg3105 mrg3105 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for United States Army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ted W. Lawson, Dean Davenport, Charles McClure, Robert Cleaver, and David Thatcher all currently exist as standalone articles and are all currently stub except for Lawson. Since these men's notability largely lies in being crewmembers on the Ruptured Duck I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to merge all of them into that article with the exception of Lawson, as he is notable as the author of Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo which was also adapted into a film starring Spencer Tracy. -- BrokenSphere Msg me 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The List of Liberty ships by hull number articles were nominated for deletion on 8 January. Any thoughts can be expressed at the entry at AfD. — Bellhalla ( talk) 14:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Cold War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for United States Army Special Forces is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans#Confederate States Army. Could a few editors take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input? Thanks. Sf46 ( talk) 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been coming across Military History articles that self-advertise that they "incorporate text from" a given source. This seems like a pretty crummy practice to me, personally. It contravenes the practices that have evolved, embodied in WP:REF and WP:CITE#HOW. When material is pasted in from another source, whether or not that source is public domain, it should be sourced properly. That includes: If it is copied word-for-word, it should be in quotes or in one of the block quote formats that are available. If a student submitted a paper that included copied text without putting it in quotes and crediting the actual words written by someone else, that would be termed plagiarism, and the student would often get a failing grade for the assignment and/or the course. doncram ( talk) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I added milder comments along these lines to several articles recently, and downrated them because as I stated they included copied text; I am somewhat puzzled why Nobunaga24 has seen fit to restore their higher ratings without commenting why. These articles include: James R. Allen, Duquesne Spy Ring, Arnold Air Force Base. Specifically i feel these should fail the B-Class-1 evaluation of appropriate sourcing within WP:HIST. Is it policy here somehow to allow copied material, and give high ratings for it? doncram ( talk) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I do fully understand that Federal government webpages may be in the public domain, so copying from them is not copyright violation, per se. This is about proper referencing, avoiding the appearance of plagiarim, and working sensibly towards higher quality of the articles. Keeping track of sources by keeping quotes in quotation marks is an essential part of writing a good article. It is very painful to go back and try to refigure where an article got which supposed fact from, later, so that the article can pass higher level Good Article or FAC review. doncram ( talk) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I have invested some time into editing the James R. Allen article now, both adding new information and sources, and setting aside in block quotes the copied-in text from the official U.S.A.F. biography, which was and is the bulk of this article. (By the way, I note that the official biography does not mention his superintendancy of the United States Air Force Academy included the first admission of women to the academy. Simply by the timing of his departure from that position one year later, I think it is possible he was embroiled in controversy over that, either as a supporter or an opponent, as a competent administrator or as a negligent/obstructionist one, but the official bio skates by that entirely.) I think the article, before and now, should be rated stub. The extent of wikipedia editor-written material is only stub length, before and now. Before, there was uncredited long passage pasted from that one external source; now there is essentially the same long passage pasted in but giving full credit (by block quoting). Either way, it is essentially a stub plus an external link. That is a stub, in my view. Thank you Nobunaga24 and others who have visited the 3 articles and reconsidered their ratings. Now that it is laid bare how little is in this article other than copied text, does that change any of your views? sincerely, doncram ( talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has been rescoped to be just the assault phase (thought this was Operation Jupiter?) - I think this is incorrect. The actions to Sept 1944 are now in Normandy Campaign. I've added a comment at Talk:Battle of Normandy#Article Name. I'd appreciate more knowledgeable heads than mine. Folks at 137 ( talk) 08:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Has just passed FPC on Commons. Please ping me if you know of other potential candidates. I do restorations. Cheers, Durova Charge! 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Matanikau Offensive is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please help expand it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Listing current military-related material:
Durova Charge! 07:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 10:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved the Ontos to M50 Ontos to stick with the usual standard I've seen of AFV articles being titled by their designation, then name. Jtrainor ( talk) 03:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Operation Camargue is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I have compiled additional info into the Parrott rifle article, including an info chart on the various guns themselves (I used only Union models). I can't locate range, munitions, and size/weight for a few pieces, though. Any chance someone has that information handy? Thanks! -- BizMgr ( talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, our articles on these siege engines are very bad. It appears that the onager and mangonel are the exect same thing, yet they have two seperate articles. They don't tell the casual reader what the difference between them is, and I don't know so I can't fix them. Just what is the difference? Also, I requested some diagrams from the greenspun illustration project here. Others might find that project very useful for drawings of guns and vehicles.-- Phoenix - wiki 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Two new nominations (both here and Commons):
Durova Charge! 04:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)