Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 163

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. 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.

→

Duncan Robertson Napier

Hi all. I'm going to create an article on this first-class cricketer who was also a second lieutenant in the British Army with the Oxfordshire Light Infantry, and served in the North-West Frontier, where he was succumbed to wounds he received in action in October 1898. I'm wondering anyone can shed more light on the circumstances surrounding his death? Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What source are you using for his receiving his wounds in October 1898? Being in the Oxfordshire Light Infantry it's likely he was a part of the Second Battalion that fought in the Tirah campaign the year before. The Tirah memorial has him dying "of disease on active service": [1] (7th image) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Pickersgill-Cunliffe. I have The Harrow School Register, 1800–1911 saying he died from injuries received (which I assume injuries are wounds) while serving on the Indian frontier. That's an interesting find on that memorial, makes me wonder if he died from disease whether he had the time and strength to make the return journey from India to England, where he is meant to have died at Kensington? Thanks for taking a look. StickyWicket (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

He's also remembered in a memorial at the Church of the Holy Spirit, Distington, Cumbria but it provides no further details (Imperial War Museum) - Dumelow (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

He is buried with his parents at the Dean Cemetery in Edinburgh. The inscription confirms the 24th October 1898 date, but no other details. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW, the Tirah Memorial in Oxford has separate sections for Killed by mutineers in Uganda / Died of Disease on Active Service / Died of Wounds / Killed in Action / Died of Disease, which tends to suggest that his body was repatriated. Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ethiopian Mig-23 shot down in Tigray last year

A Photo has been released of what appears to be a destroyed Ethiopian Mig-23 that was apparently shot down in Tigray last year (Not the one shot down on November 29) but the photo was released to twitter and I was wondering if anyone can find a non-twitter source for it. Here is the photo, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-IY9MqXMAcAVgN?format=jpg&name=medium .--Garmin21 (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The Scramble database https://www.scramble.nl/database/accident has two Mig-23 losses 29 November 2020 and 23 December 2020 if that helps. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks--Garmin21 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

AirForces Monthly also has a monthly article on aircraft losses and serious accidents, so will likely have something on this in its December 2020 or (more likely) January or February 2021 editions. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Australian Strategic Policy Institute

There's currently a long running discussion regarding whether certain criticism of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warrants inclusion in the article. Input from other editors would be useful - please see Talk:Australian Strategic Policy Institute and especially Talk:Australian Strategic Policy Institute#Blog under Press coverage. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

44M Tas Rohamlöveg

44M Tas Rohamlöveg is an article on (apparently) a vehicle that didn't exist. Do we have policy on such things? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

An odd article. There are doubtless wiki articles that debunk myths about weapons, so I can't see a principle objection. But it needs proper sourcing and personal speculation on what might have been should go - giving armour thicknesses for something that never existed even as a paper design is silly and certainly not encyclopaedic. Monstrelet (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the current article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. I don't have access to any decent books on the subject but I couldn't find any mention of it in online reliable sources. The article currently seems to be based on a page by an anonymous contributor to "tanks-encyclopedia.com" which doesn't strike me as reliable (the articles by named people may well be?) and an unattributed image posted with no commentary at Imgur - Dumelow (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The anonymous article does list a number of published sources in Hungarian which look potentially RS, but it would need a Hungarian speaker to assess them. Monstrelet (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to the reliability of tanks-encyclopedia.com, and further if two related articles by the same anonymous contributor meets WP:GNG (which states Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability). I agree a Hungarian speaker reviewing the sources listed in the tanks-encyclopedia.com would be helpful, but failing that I think it falls short. Cavalryman (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

I stripped out some incited speculation about armour, and a source that was just a pic that doesn't actually identify it as the vehicle in question. Perhaps this case of 'mistaken identity' would be better covered under the 44M TAS article rather than a stub of its own.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, a simple paragraph in the 44M TAS article would adequately cover the subject matter. Cavalryman (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC).

Agree too but I would suggest it fall within a section heading. That way, the article title can be redirected to that section. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reason in principle why we shouldn't have an article on a fake tank - things which didn't actually happen absolutely can be notable. We even have a featured article on the Cottingley Fairies, despite there obviously having been no such thing.

That said, whether or not we should have an article on this fake tank is a relevant question. At minimum, the article needs work. tanks-encyclopedia.com doesn't seem to have any information about its editorial policy, and the article in question is written by "Karika" – who doesn't merit a bio in their list of contributors, so it's hard to tell what relevant training or expertise they have. There may be reliable secondary sources which establish the notability of the subject (possibly including the ones cited in the tanks-encyclopedia page!) but if there are, our article does a pretty poor job of showing them... (And even if it is notable, the article is frankly not written in a particularly encyclopedic manner at the moment.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The Cottingley Fairies are notable because of the publicity created through possibly the most well known writer in Britain at the time and subsequent coverage. This vehicle, which.is not a hoax but more a misinterpretation of records is barely a footnote in the history of armoured warfare. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Brigade/Divisional template order of battles

I saw the article Polish cavalry brigade order of battle in 1939 and it got me thinking. Should there be more articles like this, explaining the generic structure of various brigades or divisions? E.g. the German M1944 Division or the Italian M1939 binary Division (divisione binaria), for example. It does seem like a better idea to make a specific article about the divisional template in various military instead of reexplaining the same thing in each individual article of the hundreds of divisions. It is also more concise to understand the division's makeup instead of looking through the name of each individual unit. I haven't got a firm opinion on this, what do y'all think? -- Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

We have Square division and Division slice; not clear about Triangular division. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Joan of Arc

I have nominated Joan of Arc 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. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Alcibiades 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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

1 sep

Topic:-

(Islamist?) attacks in Zamfara & Congo

Anyone know anything about this? Thanks. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What year? Are you talking about a current event or a historical one? From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Current. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Zumwalt assignment

Zumwalt: The Life and Times of Admiral Elmo Russell "Bud" Zumwalt Jr. seems to have a full list of assignments for Elmo Zumwalt, but every link I have only allows me to see the first quarter of those duty assignments, which I have placed on the page. Anyone who can see the full list in the book, I would appreciate it if you could complete what is already present on the page. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks SuperWIKI!! Do you have access to a copy of "On Watch"? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That's a no, I'm afraid. Apologies. SuperWIKI (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't apologize!! Documenting Zumwalt's tour is a GREAT idea; just sorry I cannot help you further. It appears that the copy of On Watch in the Wellington Public Library has now been remaindered, so I cannot go down and help you with quotations (New Zealand is on Level 3 / 4 lockdown right now, so the Library is closed anyway). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I have My Father, My Son by Elmo JR and Elmo III. I don't know if the info is in there. MB 16:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Nvm, after a few weeks if searching, I finally found a full source. Sigh... SuperWIKI (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Egyptian frigate involved in 1877 collision

Can anyone shed and light on the identity of the Egyptian frigate that was involved in a collision with a British steamship at Constantinople on 19 January 1877. The List of Egyptian sail frigates lists two steam frigates, Ibrahim and Mehemet Ali. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, it was the Mehemet Ali (which was also damaged and took on water). There's details in the The Morning Post of 1 February 1877 (starts towards the bottom of the left hand column of the clipping) - Dumelow (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, Dumelow. Mjroots (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries Mjroots, I've knocked up a short article at Egyptian frigate Mehemet Ali. I'd be grateful if you could give it a quick once over - Dumelow (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dumelow: - I've done a few tweaks. Should it be linked from the list of Egyptian sail frigates? If she was built in the UK, there's a good chance of a mention in contemporary newspapers. Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots, I thought so too but couldn't find anything (I was a bit annoyed I couldn't find a year of launching). I guess it might be that she wasn't named until after delivered to the Khedive - Dumelow (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Have seen one unreferenced suggestion that she was built at Boston. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Boston, Lincolnshire or Boston, Massachusetts? Mjroots (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Boston, Massachusetts in 1859 is the claim. To repeat myself, there's no evidence attached to the claim but I can't imagine it coming completely out of nowhere. Might be useful for keyword searches or the like? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Italian invasion of Egypt

Would someone mind looking at the recent edits by @Ahmed88z: and my reverts with a view to avoiding 3RR and edit war troubles? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't have too much to add beyond the fact that apart from being non-standard, referring to a battle as an "unresolved victory" seems to be an extremely ambiguous statement, if not one that just doesn't actually mean anything coherent. Loafiewa (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, it should not indicate that the battle was an Italian victory, because the British attacked again and occupied Libya after that, so we cannot say that the battle was a decisive Italian victory, possibly inconclusive. --Ahmed88z (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Per what Keith has been linking in his edit summaries: "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." If the Italians win, the Italians win. The Aftermath section exists to discuss what happened next. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying, Ahmed. I'm saying that calling it an "unresolved victory" is a non-standard and confusing term, and should be avoided. I've not studied this particular battle, so I have no inclination one way or the other, but there is a Manual of Style, and it should be adhered to. Loafiewa (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Italians set out to invade Egypt and ended up at Sidi Barrani in Egypt. This is called a success by the RS. The sequel was the disaster of Operation Compass which has an article, in which the detail of the British success/Italian debacle is delved into, expanding on the Aftermath section of The Italian Invasion of Egypt article. That's where the inadequate nature of the Italian victory on the invasion is described. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Coup response laundry lists and flagicon cruft

I'm not really sure where this belongs, but I've noticed a pattern over the years where articles on coups and the like, most recently 2021 Guinean coup d'état, will have a section titled "Reactions" which is just a list of flagicons followed by snippets of statements by a dozen and a half governments' and international organizations' boilerplate statements saying "We condemn the coup". Some these are sourced to Twitter, and most the rest are simply government press releases. What is the encyclopedic value of such a section? What does it matter that Bulgaria and Qatar disapprove of the coup? Seems just about every putsch in the post-Cold War era racks up a number of condemnations, many of which have little actual impact on what happens next. In 1993 Burundian coup d'état attempt (right after the Cold War had ended) I managed to integrate the condemnations into a prose paragraph which focused on the condemnation of neighbouring countries (i.e. they actually mattered) as well as the disapproval of the most significant international organisations and suspension of aid programs from large donor states. These actually had a tangible impact on what happened and contributed to the coup's failure. Maybe we should think about curtailing these sections to stuff of lasting significance instead of repeating tweets? 2021 Nigerien coup d'état attempt is a less egregious example, but I still feel like 2021 Malian coup d'état handles it better. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the listcruft is unhelpful. I've done a quick pass, but I don't have the patience right now to write something more thorough for the Guinean coup. Although I agree that most of the time, international condemnations are routine and unless there's anything unusual about them, we probably don't need to devote too much text to it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Oryx team.

Is the Oryx pair a trusted source? From what I've seen they are pretty well respected by people in the intelligence and conflict tracking community. Here's their website^[1]

References

^ https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/

It might be best to ask this at WP:RSN. Examples of what are clearly reliable sources that cite this source would be helpful in demonstrating reliability. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Max Hastings a historian?

I have removed the description of Max Hastings as a "military historian" in his article. I take the view that a historian is someone with training and qualifications in the academic subject of history (rather along the lines of WP:HISTRS). Particularly in Military History, I think it is important for this encyclopaedia to differentiate between academic historians and others who have written a book about history - however carefully researched and well regarded that book might be. To use the word "historian" more loosely is to mislead the reader.

I then moved on to look at other articles that describe Hastings as a military historian. After finding and changing two, I realised that there appeared to be quite a few instances. So, to avoid looking like some single issue editor on a "mission", I thought I had better stop and seek the opinions of others. Please comment on whether we should describe Max Hastings as a "historian" or "military historian" in Wikipedia. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

My personal view is that he’s a journalist who’s written “popular histories”, an “amateur historian” if you will. But that’s WP:OR. I think there’s probably enough WP:RS which describe him as a “historian” (e.g. this) for that term to be applied to him. But, ugh. DeCausa (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That's my personal view too. Anyone using his most recent works should be aware that he sometimes lifts material from the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it is an issue of undue elitism to try to reserve the description of "historian" in any form to those who have a certain level of education. By all means mention the specialised education or training someone has received in their article. However, someone spending 4 years in lectures does not make them automatically superior or authoritative than someone without a degree who has dedicated a lifetime to research in the archives. Note, I am not talking about Hastings here, as I don't know his story, but about the principle of automatically applying or removing a status from someone. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I mostly agree with the rationale in the post above, although I'd observe that the reverse argument - that someone casually writing history books without a care in the world can be labelled a 'historian', whereas as someone with formal qualifications (and who might actually spend their life in an archive) would not be so labelled. Anyway, that aside, I don't think we can remove the description from Hastings, although nor should we prioritise it. While I'm reluctant to make this comparison, it was the first one that came to mind: We describe Churchill as a statesman, soldier, writer, historian and painter in the first lines of his article. I don't believe he was formally trained as a historian or writer, but he did win a Nobel prize. Even with that prize, I would think most people would expect to see Churchill described as a 'politician'. And so by the same token we should describe Hastings primarily as a 'journalist'. That doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge that he writes history books, but it might avoid giving undue prominence to it (and also tells the reader something about the quality of the books...). Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

In Hastings' case, perhaps "author" is better, as it doesn't imply adherence to historical method. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of OR or our personal views, their seems to be a mountain of HQ RS supporting Hastings being described as either a historian or a military historian. If we don't like that, tough; this is Wikipedia, we follow the sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I note that Hastings' own website avoids describing him as a historian[2]. Nor does his literary agent for his back catalogue use the word historian to describe him[3]. Neither do Amazon's notes about him make such a claim[4].ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think that matters. As Gog says and as I originally responded there’s plenty of RS that describe him as an historian - and that’s what we have to base it on (despite my own personal view, however). But specifically to answer From Hill to Shore, having an undergraduate degree in history (“someone spending 4 years in lectures”) wouldn’t make anyone a historian. It’s more about a professional career at an academic institution pursuing historical research and publishing in peer reviewed journals - hence the debate about calling David Irving a historian. Max Hastings doesn’t have that - and quite a lot of his work wouldn’t get through an academic peer review. But RS call him an “historian” so we’re stuck with that. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Considering Stephen Ambrose is still called a historian even with his plagiarism, I'm not sure this is a huge deal. If RS are calling him that, no reason to avoid it. Intothat darkness 21:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

...and there are plenty of high quality sources that describe Hastings as (for instance) "... a broadcaster, journalist and author"- and nothing else.[5]. I think that this is significant. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Exactly my point. Getting or not getting an academic qualification should not be the measure of whether we call someone a historian, as was implied in the original post. The qualification or training only gives you the tools to be a good historian. Other people can learn the same tools through less formal learning or experience. Whether someone demonstrates effective use of those tools is more important, regardless of their background. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No, he's a writer. Keith-264 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Max Hastings books are regularly reviewed (not always favourably) as history works and he is described by journalists as a military historian, so he is a military historian. For instance, here's a review of one of his books in the British Journal of Military History. The current edition of the Journal of Military History has reviewed his latest work. A bunch of news sources also describe him as military historian e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. The term 'historian' seems to be widely applied to people who write history books, and it's unusual to withhold it. For instance, many experts and journalists make a point of describing David Irving as a 'writer' or similar rather than a 'historian' due to the major problems with the works he's produced. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hastings is one of the most prolific current writers of military history, so does that make him a military history writer or a historian? Presumably he did "carry out original research, often using primary sources" for many of his books as required by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)#Who is a historian. Presumably so did Rick Atkinson, Mark Bowden and many others. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Replying to Nick-D's comments: ...regularly reviewed ... as history works. But that does not make him a historian - that is simply a criterion that may allow an editor to use him as an RS (per WP:HISTRS). Anyone can write a book on a historical subject. Journalists describe him as a historian because (a) they are journalists, just like him and (b) they don't know the difference. The cited article reviewing his work Catastrophe: Europe goes to War 1914 describes him as a "military historical phenomenon", so avoiding the word "historian". I see that as a form of words that deliberately dodges the issue on whether he is a historian.

More generally - this is about the way Wikipedia characterises its sources. As an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources, there is a strong implication that any qualification of a source - such as "historian Richard Overy says..." (as opposed to "Richard Overy says...") tells the reader that the source is an academic historian. When WP:SOURCETYPES goes on about using academic sources, it is unhelpful if editors use the word "historian" more loosely than academics. This is not about whether Hastings is a suitable RS, but whether he should be specifically characterised in articles as a historian, when the point is debatable.

WP:BLP may also be an issue here. Reading this article[11] by Hastings, he clearly holds academic historians in high regard. As above, he does not describe himself as a historian. Does he dislike/avoid anything that implied that he was one? (Yes, I know his publishers stick "historian" on the blurb for his books - but they probably have contractual muscle to do so.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It does seem to me that insisting that "historian" can only be applied to someone with formal training in modern academic methods, without a policy approach to back it, is contrary to common usage and therefore should not be encouraged unless policy across Wikipedia is aligned. It would also throw up the question of what we do with historians from earlier times, who could not, be definition, have had training in modern historical methods.Monstrelet (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hastings is a military historian. He could also be described as a writer of military history. The term "historian" is not a protected term and can be applied to anyone - from the resident of a village producing a history of the locality as a memoir to an academic writing on an obscure incident that they personally translated from contemporary Latin parchment.

If the context needs qualifying (eg comparing his work with another on the same subject) then that can be done by judicious language "journalist and military historian Max Hastings", "Max Hastings, writer of popular books on the Second World War", "Max Hastings, former editor of the Daily Telegraph" and so on. And the same for the other side of the story "John Smith, professor of history at..." "John Smith, writer of books on medieval warfare", "John Smith curator of ..." You get the idea.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Do RS say he is one?Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

In my experience I’ve found people trained and educated as political scientists described as historians by other academics when they do historical work. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I would entirely agree that it is elitist (and slightly objectionable, if you want my honest opinion) to reserve the title of historian to those "with training and qualifications in the academic subject of history". This opens up all kinds of cans of worms. For instance, should we not describe someone as an actor unless they have graduated from an accredited course at a stage school? Or a musician unless they are professionally trained? Or should "academic subjects" somehow be treated differently? How much training and qualification do you need to be described as an historian? A first degree in history? Many "amateur" historians have a damn sight more knowledge of their subject than a 21-year-old with a degree. A doctorate in history? That still rules out even many academic historians from before a few decades ago when PhDs became a standard requirement for academics (even when I was at university in the early 1990s - reading history, incidentally - some older and highly respected academics didn't have PhDs). No, we just can't be this proscriptive without appearing pompous and elitist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

On the subject of military historians, anyone fancy improving the lede for James Holland (author)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

To echo what Slatersteven said: "Do RS say he is one?".. and to add - what would be the best reliable sources to determine this? Perhaps not journalists - but something with more specialist understanding - journals of history, etc? (Hohum ^@) 16:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Just for information, I am going to concede on this one - which rather demonstrates the value of discussion rather than piling on with a load of "single issue" editing. Beyond the arguments here, I had not noticed that he is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society. That may leave the puzzle of how to concisely differentiate the cited works of an academic historian in an article if that is ever necessary. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, the criteria to be a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society say nothing about formal qualifications or academic position. Rather, "Fellowships are awarded to those who have made an original contribution to the discipline of history, normally through the authorship of a book, a body of scholarly work similar in scale and impact to a book, the organisation of exhibitions and conferences, the editing of journals, and other works of diffusion and dissemination grounded in historical research".Monstrelet (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

He forfeited consideration as a historian for me when he said that historical research on Normandy hadn't changed his mind about it. I think that a big part of the definition of a historian is a willingness to concede being wrong when the weight of evidence justifies it. There must be a distinction between a historian and the pedlars of obsolete and derivative cod-history. Keith-264 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

British Historian Sir Max Hastings was named the recipient of the 2012 Pritzker Military Library Literature Award for Lifetime Achievement in Military Writing from the Pritzker Military Museum & Library, who seem to be knowledgeable chaps. Alansplodge (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"I take the view that a historian is someone with training and qualifications in the academic subject of history" --that is not how the history scholars and journals define the term. Military history especially is a strong field for non-academics. I have seen that at West Point (where I was a visiting professor in 1989)--most of the history courses there are taught by people WITHOUT a PhD in history. The scholarly journals review Hastings' books because they consider them serious major works of genuine history, and yes the reviewers call him a historian. (1) The End of World War II in Asia: An Interview with Sir Max Hastings" by Donald A. Yerxa in Historically Speaking (July 2008) states he is “One of the keenest students of modern military history” p 19. (2) in Journal of Cold War Studies (2010) p 162-4 he is "British journalist and military historian Max Hastings ....this excellent volume that contributes significantly to our understanding of the momentous and tragic 1944–1945 battle for Japan." Rjensen (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Rjensen is correct. When it comes to specialty areas of history, and military history is one of them, then the knowledge of the person becomes a prime consideration. Military officers often write histories without a specific title, and receive serious consideration because of the education that they bring to the subject. Mr. Hastings is a historian.Tirronan (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The term historian implies knowledge and interest, thats it... It doesn’t necessarily require formal training or education. It also doesn’t speak to quality at all, one can be a bad historian and still a historian after all. Semi-illiterate Old Man Milton from down the road who is as old as the hills and just as craggy who never saw a day of formal schooling past the 8th grade may very well be the local historian. Would we say that Herodotus is not a historian but only a writer because they lack any formal training or qualification in the field? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that the education and training of a historian is significant but not exclusive; John Terraine was a historian, Alan Clark was a hack. As for being a prize-winner, how much of that is advertising guff to flog more books? Is Hastings' oeuvre history or not? I say no, there's not enough primary research, rather some elegantly-written, anecdotal pot-boilers of the type published every few years containing old wine in new bottles. Contrast his books with those of Adam Tooze. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The world’s worst historian is still a historian, plenty of hack historians out there not sure why you draw such an arbitrary line between the two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Also just to be clear academic qualification and recognition don’t always guarantee quality either, see for example Nobel disease. I’m not arguing that we should treat a pop non-fiction historian, a hack historian, and a serious and respected academic historian the same WP:RS wise, but thats not really what we’re talking about here. We seem to be talking about using the label “historian” or “military historian” to describe a person. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The broader the term "historian" the less meaning and value it has. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

While this may be true, insisting the word historian has a specialist meaning in the face of common usage is not really the role of this project. By all means, if there is significant RS critique of someone's historical work, that should be placed alongside any awards and plaudits in the wikipage. But, even then, you are demonstrating different in published opinions, not denying others views are valid, which is, as I understand it, the wiki way. Monstrelet (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, the term historian in fact has little meaning and carries almost no value. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Howark Kirk may venture to disagree. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Never read it, on your suggestion it is now on my kindle. I look forward to understanding this joke at some point in the near future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

List of VC awards in unit articles

I was touching up the links on 3rd (United Kingdom) Division#Recipients of the Victoria Cross and it struck me that a British division is an organizational unit that doesn't tend to have awards and the such associated with it. VCs tend to accrue (for want of a better word) with the regiments of the British Army. Any opinions as to retention or removal of such separate lists (as opposed to in context in running text) in Divisional articles? Or come to think of it, if they exist, in brigade articles? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I will add that British divisions are fluid organisations.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly VCs aren't often associated with a division in any Commonwealth context, although in other national contexts high awards are actually associated with the division in reliable sources. In the Commonwealth context it is usually their regiment or battalion. I think it is fine to mention briefly in the narrative of a divisional article, but not as a separate list in its own section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Union dummy ironclad Black Terror

At User:Hog Farm/Black Terror (ship), I've been drafting an article about a fake warship used by the Union Navy during the American Civil War. Almost every single RS I've seen tells the story that Black Terror was built in February 1863 after USS Indianola was captured by Confederate warships and that the fake was sent downriver to bluff the Confederates into blowing up Indianola. However, when making a Gbooks trawl to make sure I had all RS I could access represented, I came across a work by Myron J. Smith (published by the academic publisher McFarland & Co.) that states it was an earlier fake ironclad that was used to bluff Indianola into getting torched and that Black Terror was instead a contraption from a week or two later that was used to detect locations of Confederate batteries. Smith uses a number of primary source newspaper accounts and letters to support the existence of two ironclads and refers to the traditional story of Black Terror as a conflation. On the other hand, Secret Missions of the Civil War edited by Philip Van Doren Stern quotes at length an 1885 memoir by the Union admiral in charge of the deception, where the admiral (Porter) describes in detail (but does not name) a ship matching the description of Black Terror as being the one involved with the Indianola. But of course, that could just be Porter going along with the conflation because it made for a better story.

I originally was hoping to get this to GA or A class, but now I'm not even sure I should publish the draft, given that I've got high-quality RS telling the traditional one, but then Smith's high-quality RS work providing fairly strong evidence for why that's wrong. WP:DUE WEIGHT would suggest relegating Smith to a footnote, especially given that two solid sources (Miller and Chatelain) support the other version and postdate Smith, but Smith has a really strong case and the other sources don't address the question of two fakes. As I can't reconcile these two, it wouldn't be above a C probably, but should I even publish this at this point? Any ideas/suggestions/additional sources?Hog Farm _Talk 05:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If you have more sources suggesting that Black Terror was one ship rather than two, and thus presumably more information on that form of the ship(s), then I think it would make sense to write the article for Black Terror as you had originally envisaged it, and then to add a section on the possibility of a second dummy ship after that. Unless I've misread this, either way you're writing about a dummy ship created by the Union to scare the Confederate sailors into destroying Indianola. If more work comes to light that definitively separates the two ships then it can surely be changed to reflect this at the later date. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess the nuance is that all agree on the description and name of Black Terror, just that Smith states that the Indianola was conducted by one otherwise lost to history and that Black Terror was used for other purposes while everyone else says Black Terror was the Indianola ship. All agree as to the form and appearance of the vessel, just disagree on use. Hog Farm _Talk 22:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

And I've found a primary source referring to two vessels in old issues of Harper's Weekly - March 28, 1863 supports one part of Smith's account (that Porter didn't know what had happened beforehand), but the rest is fairly consistent with Black Terror and includes a number of quotes found in the sources supporting the traditional story. April 11, 1863 references a second fake ironclad and refers to a picture that is stated in sources to be Black Terror. The paper then includes a letter referring to a dummy ironclad and the wreck of the Indianola. I am so thoroughly confused. Hog Farm _Talk 22:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that the March 28 source can't even agree with itself on whether or not Indianola's guns were captured or destroyed! Are there other sources that provide a more concrete answer as to whether the first dummy was sunk, as well? The article states at one point that the ship was almost untouched and then Porter reports it sunk by their batteries. If it becomes clearer that there was more than one dummy would it be better to create an article on dummy ships as a Union Navy concept as a whole? (also, what's the likelihood that being built in such quick succession to one another and for similar purposes that these two ships were given the same name...!?) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

All of the secondary sources I've seen leave off with Black Terror running aground and the Confederates finding out it was a fake. I doubt that ultimate fate is known, as Porter would have limited ways of knowing what happened behind Confederate lines, and the Confederates were likely too embarassed to record it. Hog Farm _Talk 23:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Notification

Discussion that could affect the names of over 620 ship articles, see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)#"Naming articles about ship classes" needs consensus or clarification re: SUFFIXDASH. - wolf 15:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. 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! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. Hog Farm _Talk 07:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice

There is a move request at Talk:List of military aircraft of the United States (naval)#Requested move 16 August 2021 that is yet to close. - wolf 00:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Usmanu Danfodiyo University's new article

Usmanu Danfodiyo University's new article on banditry in Nigeria is available via their Facebook link, here is it https://www.facebook.com/Udusok/photos/a.918435681511915/4352033118152137/?type=3&theater It's a great piece on the bandit conflict the only one I've found with a complete list of bandit groups and I would like to use it in the article I created on the Nigerian bandit conflict but can't because it's only available on google drive which I can't use for Wikipedia. Do you guys have any advice on what I can do?--Garmin21 (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe just use the generic citation template instead of cite web, and as publisher put the university. It’s a publicly available document so that counts as published. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Garmin21 (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghan Armed Forces - shifting to subarticle about 2002 - 2021 ?

Dear all, Worldwar1989 wishes to change the title of the Afghan Armed Forces article to something indicating that this article, covering 1709-present, is only about 2002-2021. I have explained to him on his talkpage that there is a normal set of national armed forces articles ("Military of X," Military of New Zealand, for example) covering the *entire* history of all the armed forces of a country. There needs to be such an article for Afghanistan, which Military of Afghanistan can redirect to. In addition, reliable sources such as Giustozzi, The Army of Afghanistan 2016 do not separate totally the armed forces of the Taliban from the history of the armed forces of Afghanistan- there's a chapter in Giustozzi's book covering the Taliban in normal chronological order. However, there is ample precedent for History of the Afghan Armed Forces 2002 - 2021 which would avoid breaking the normal pattern, and allow more detailed description about 2002 - 2021.

I would like to propose that this article remain at Afghan Armed Forces. All interested, please vote & comment at Talk:Afghan Armed Forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Controlled vocabulary and Authority

Are there any controlled vocabulary and authority which can be used for the cataloguing and subject classification/index words (keywords) of military history information resources? I am wanting to classify a military archives book collection. Any information of any kind would be helpful, thanks in advance. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Either Library of Congress Classification:Class U -- Military Science and it's associated "V" Naval Science; or Dewey Decimal System. LOC generally preferred. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Pro-Russian/Anti-US edits

Articles such as Russian Armed Forces and Hyperpower have been hit recently to make claims that the Russian military is the strongest in the world, and conversely that the US military is weak. Russian Armed Forces has come off semi-protection recently and is being hit again - currently by 2603:7080:4E43:1B00:196:D300:DF54:563A (talk · contribs · WHOIS). More eyes would be useful. Spokoyni (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Translations

I was wondering what the current policy is regarding translating GA article from Russian and Greek language WPs. If I was to translate an article that is GA or FA on Greek WP (without having any access to the sources cited), would it qualify as a GA or FA here?--Catlemur (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If the sources are copied across and someone is able to verify that what they say supports your translation, then it is possible (subject to passing our quality standards and procedures for GA and FA, which may be different to the original language version of Wikipedia). If the sources can't be verified, then no. The key problem is that the sources were inserted to support the original text. Without access to the sources, your translation may have inadvertently altered the meaning or emphasis from what the sources had intended. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense, thanks.--Catlemur (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This project has been mentioned by a media organization:

I'd like to add a new article to this template [12] (it's sorta squeezed in top-ish right on this page), but I can't find the template in the wikitext, it must be transcluded or something. Help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Header. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Old history mind. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Then perhaps it'll have a bit of perspective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Or not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's not reopen old wounds over this. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

English Civil War

There is an ongoing discussion about the name of the article Third English Civil War see Talk:Third English Civil War#Article title (2021 revisited) more editors will hopefully bring consensus for an appropriate name. -- PBS (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please also review the section Talk:Third English Civil War#Article title before commenting - the rationale for my move, which PBS has reverted, was set out there. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators has begun

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, Hog Farm _Talk 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently at debate at Talk:Mark Milley#Reframing to suggest treason that may be of interest to members of this project. (fyi) - wolf 16:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Haitian refugee crisis

Haitian refugee crisis from 2014 lists this project on its talk page banner. WikiProject Haiti does not seem particularly active. Given the crisis currently in the news, what's going on at the Texas border right now makes the Trump era immigration issues seem much less. I'm wondering if there is another article or project covering the current disaster. If so, perhaps that project could merge this with a newer article. If not, this seems to be a hot 2021 topic not to be covered by Wikipedia. Any suggestions on where to post to get this picked up by active editors?— Maile (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights, the current situation isn’t a big deal compared to the 91-94 situation and there is minimal if any military aspect to it unlike 91-94 which was largely handled by the US military. I would also avoid so obviously politicizing your editing "what's going on at the Texas border right now makes the Trump era immigration issues seem much less” has nothing to do with wikipedia and this is not a forum for general discussion. You could also try WikiProject USA, WikiProject Mexico, WikiProject Politics, and WikiProject Law Enforcement, all of those appear to be within the wheelhouse of the current TV crisis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review needed at ACR

G'day all, an entirely self-interested request for a source review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Uskok-class torpedo boat. It is otherwise nearly good to go. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

A similar entirely self-interested request for a source review would be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Grant's Canal. Hog Farm _Talk 04:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The latter is done!

. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Another self-interested request for a source review, this one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Wilfred Clouston. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing contemporary military bio articles

I have recently run into an issue when it comes to secondary sources and contemporary living military service member articles. I have a degree in history and know the difference between primary, secondary, and independent sources, but I think many editors are confused between what primary, secondary, and independent sources are. When WP:Soldier was a standard, we were able to use it as support of notability. Now that the standard is no longer effective, I would say a large majority of contemporary military service members, including a large number of General officers, are at risk for AfD as most supporting references are primary sources in the form of news articles. The real issue is that there is a very limited amount of secondary sources for these articles. There are plenty of primary and independent sources, but not secondary sources. I would like to draw attention to Timothy J. Edens and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination). I would be interested in hearing other opinions on the matter. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jamesallain85: For the purposes of Wikipedia, the view of newspaper articles as certain kinds of sources are different than what's commonly held in academic circles. At my university I've been often told that newspapers are always primary sources (especially in history classes). On Wikipedia, it's (for whatever reason) more contextual. For example, if you wrote in an article "The banner headline for the New York Daily News on 30 October 1975 read 'Ford to City: Drop Dead'" and cited it to the Daily News page 1, that would be viewed as primary. However, if you cited the same page of the newspaper to support the statement "President Gerald Ford did not support extending federal financial aid to New York City" than that would be viewed as secondary. Our terminology may be weird, but theoretically, as long as a soldier has ample coverage in good newspapers you shouldn't be worried. Consensus is that mainstream news coverage counts as the reliable secondary sources that show notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I appreciate the feedback, because I am quite confused how it applies to AfDs. I have had multiple articles deleted/nominated, which should have easily passed WP:GNG from how you have explained it. I have seen a trend of overzealous deletion editors nominating articles claiming they fail WP:GNG despite having multiple verifiable and independent secondary sources and convince other editors to jump on the bandwagon for deletion. Timothy J. Edens for example currently seems as though it is on the brink of deletion, despite having ample coverage. It would seem there is a precedent on using newspaper articles as secondary sources as pertaining to wikipedia, however when I mention it I am shutdown citing WP:OTHERSTUFF. Is there a wikipedia policy or essay you could point me to that outlines the use of newspaper articles as secondary sources as you explained it? Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jamesallain85: not exactly, though WP:NEWSORG affirms that mainstream newspapers are reliable sources. The problem with the Edens article is that it relies too much on government and civic/alumni association articles (particularly the US Army website) which, while reliable, are not WP:Independent of Edens and thus don't contribute much towards an argument of notability. The regular newspaper coverage cited that article appears (from my brief glance) to only be passing mentions, not WP:Significant Coverage. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: That is the issue I am speaking of, compare the sources in Edens article to any number of contemporary Generals, even of higher rank, and one cannot find any better sources. Some of the examples I quickly pulled: Carter Ham, Joseph Anderson (U.S. Army general), George Appenzeller, Robert P. Ashley Jr., Francis M. Beaudette, Scott D. Berrier, Michael A. Bills, William H. Brandenburg. The articles referenced here are very much the same, change of command, military sources etc. I actually would actually consider US Army sources as independent, as the subject of the article has no direct input to what is written. For example The Stars and Stripes, while a US Government newspaper, still writes articles on sexual misconduct of a high ranking officers, for example: https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2021-09-01/army-colonel-rape-allegation-fort-stewart-lewis-mcchord-2740850.html. That would seem, in my opinion, to be an independent source when concerning Col. Chris Warner, as it doesn't show bias in favour of Warner. The purpose of looking at independent sources is avoiding bias, or that is my understanding. Thoughts? Jamesallain85 (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the idea of using non-US Army sources to prove notability is to indicate that sources outside of the military organization they are serving with view them as significant. Hog Farm _Talk 05:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A lot of military sources tend to be internal consumption "Our camp welcomes new adjutant", or PR. EG "Colonel says new guns are good". But an article in which an officer waxes lyrical about a newly introduced weapon, is about the weapon not the officer. These articles can confirm that a given soldier exists and may corroborate details but don't tell us that they are someone to be covered in wikipedia. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

At the same time WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Jamesallain85 (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, the problem here (and likely in the other articles you note) is that internal sources and sources linked to the person do not provide evidence that the person is actually notable. I work for a large organisation, and our staff newsletter often runs articles on the senior managers. Without meaning any disrespect to my bosses, the stuff internal communications writes about them here doesn't indicate that they are notable beyond my organisation so such newsletters aren't useful for WP:BIO. The same applies to service/base newspapers. Modern militaries have lots of general-level officers who are totally unknown outside their service. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The analogy to a business is a fair one and in the same way local newspaper reports on change of command look very much like business pages ones reporting the retirement of a managing director complete with praise from the new appointee.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that a private organisations are very different than the military, especially how it is viewed in a historical context. Nobody studies the past senior managers of Apple or Amazon other than maybe the very top few individuals. For that reason I wouldn't compare military to a private organisation when discussing notability. Government newspapers such as Stars & Stripes also report the negative, such as scandals, and is a lot more transparent than a newsletter from a private organisation. The issue is that newspapers and media outlets rarely report on the subject of the military in general unless there is a scandal. We have soldiers which I would consider notable simply because of their position (Division Commanders, Corps Commanders, etc.), but even they are not reported in the media other than the same change of command and "internal media." They are surly notable, but the history books literally haven't been written yet to provide that notability. The problem with WP:Soldier was it was overly broad, however without its guidance I fear the opposite is happening, we avoid worthwhile articles because of the aforementioned issues with sources and subjective application of notability. I would argue that any commander that led a brigade size element or larger into combat would be notable. At the same time, I would say a general logistics officer that never deployed as a commander wouldn't meet notability standards. Jamesallain85 (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A brigade commander, combat or not, isn't going to be as notable as a logistics officer who never deployed but managed a sizeable procurement program that happened to be successful. And Stars and Stripes, per their own website, is an UNOFFICIAL Government newspaper. Intothat darkness 14:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

CNO history

Doing a CNO history section with [this among the sources]. You're welcome to assist. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Lloyd's Register Foundation, Heritage & Education Centre uploads 5000 documents to Wikimedia Commons

Hi WikiProject Military History,

The Lloyd’s Register Foundation, Heritage & Education Centre have just uploaded 5005 documents from our Ship Plan and Survey Report Collection to Wikimedia Commons that may be of interest to you. The ingestion is comprised of 16 boxes and accounts for 1082 ships across 184 unique places of build.

The documents include original handwritten correspondence from Lloyd's Register surveyors, ship plans and even a small selection of photographs. Examples include an annual report for Fiery Cross, a wreck report for Highwave, and cabin plan for the City of Simla.

In addition to the Ship Plan and Survey Report Collection, we are also beginning to ingest every edition of the Lloyd’s Register of Shipping until 1909 as well as a percentage of the First and Famous Collection, the world’s most iconic ships from within our collection. We will be sure to keep you updated on the progress of this next step.

Browse the full collection here.

We would really welcome some support with the resources and encourage you to share our documents on Wikipedia. LRFHEC (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help.

@LRFHEC: This looks very well intentioned, but from checking a few of the files some stuff has gone wrong. They are marked with copyright watermarks, and I can't see where it's been verified that they have actually been released. Did you collaborate with Wikimedia UK or similar? If not, they could help sort this out. It would be helpful if the files could be uploaded without the copyright watermarks. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Unfortunately it is policy that all of our documents have to be copyright watermarked. LRFHEC (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

- Not to be cheeky, but theoretically under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International one could simply crop out the watermark and make a "derivative" file, Lloyd's would still of course be attributed in the file details. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

List of feudal wars 12th-14th century

Hello, all,

I know nothing about military history but noticed this basically unsourced list article had been moved from draft space to main space. I thought I'd bring it to the attention to folks who know about the subject to see if this article's format and subject arrangement was consistent with other lists of wars on Wikipedia.

Thank you for anyone who can give a minute or two to look it over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Commented on talk page. Needs clearer definitions and more modern sources. Others can no doubt assist with a better list format. Monstrelet (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria FAR

I have nominated Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria 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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

GAR notice

Tower Building of the Little Rock Arsenal has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 01:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Featured and good topic candidates

There are currently three nominations for featured or good topic status here which could do with more editors offering opinions as to whether they meet the criteria. (COI alert: two of them are mine.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan
Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

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) 14:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

RAF Butzweilerhof

While looking over RAF Germany i've noticed RAF Butzweilerhof

The articles states Nos 68 and 87 Squadron RAF where they sometime between 1951 and 1965. I checked my copies of Jefford (RAF Squadrons. A comprehensive record of the movement and equipment of all RAF squadrons and their antecedents since 1912), Halley (RAF Squadrons. The Squadrons of the Royal Air Force & Commonwealth 1918-1988), Lake (Flying units of the RAF) and Delve (The Source Book of the RAF) but i find no mention of Butzweilerhof. I have found mentions of RAF Wahn connected to 68 and 87 Squadrons which links to Cologne Bonn Airport.

Did Butzweilerhof actually have any Royal Air Force flying squadrons?

The main history content of the page appears to come from https://www.baor-locations.org/RAFButzweilerhof.aspx.html and the rest of the article is unreferenced.

Gavbadger (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

See related Cologne_Butzweilerhof_Airport and the de:article. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=Butzweilerhof&_ps=30 list several Signal Units but no flying squadrons. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

But Jefford, second edition, is the gold standard. Far better than random internet fansites. Where does he say No. 68 Squadron RAF and No. 87 Squadron RAF were between 1951-65? I note our Laarbruch article lists 68 Squadron as there by 1957. As for Butzweilerhof, if it's not listed in the index for Jefford every mention of a squadron should be removed. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think 97 Sqn should be removed because our Avro Lincoln article, citing Delve, says it was at Hemswell 1945-55, and thereafter became a Project Emily Thor unit, also at Hemswell. 97 Sqn reformed at RAF Watton on 25 May 1963 with the Vickers Varsity T.1, Canberra Mk B.2 and the Hastings C.2. On 2 January 1967 the squadron was disbanded here.^[1]Buckshot06 (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

While internet sites are not generally reliable enough to support article text, they can be useful to help us piece together the probable usage of a site and may then point us in the direction of more reliable sources. In this case there are a number of internet sources that claim to show photographs of squadrons at Butzweilerhof in the 1950s, though they all seem to be transitory assignments. This example suggests the site was used for experimental trials.[13] We also have an air accident record for a squadron assigned to the base.[14] There are a couple of other accident records on that site but they do not state whether the base was the plane's assigned station or just a stop over point to refuel. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not surprising that we cannot find anything for 97 Squadron (our article claims that 87 Squadron was based there). Note that https://www.baor-locations.org/RAFButzweilerhof.aspx.html doesn't actually mention the two squadrons so at the moment the information is completely unsourced, and can happily be removed. The only thought is that perhaps it is a temporary move or detachment for exercises or while runways at RAF Wahn (where 68 and 87 Squadrons were based) were refurbished.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

No mention of Butzweilerhof at the fairly detailed history here (which may pass RS as it appears to have been hosted at the RAF Laarbruch museum.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Nigel. Faceplant!! However the gathered information I can move over to slightly expand the 97 Sqn page :) Buckshot06 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at 112 Sqn (which had the accident), its summary log for 1951-55 is available. It confirms it was attached briefly "to RAF Butzweilerhof on P.S.P. landing trials"; arrived end of January 1953 and departed early March. Records for 68 Sqn & 87 Sqn are available but broken down into multiple sections and I haven't gone through them in detail, given we don't have exact dates, but seems likely it was something similar. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Gavbadger Halley states that No. 16 Squadron, No. 94 Squadron and No. 145 Squadron were at RAF Butzweilerhof between 7 September 1953 and 31 October 1953, after which they all went to RAF Celle.^[2] Whilst the accompanying text on each squadron does not state why, I would suggest that the fact they were at Butzweilerhof at the same time is because they were on some major exercise (7 weeks long..?), but often, they would be detached there, and not posted there. I would favour something along the lines of a runway re-surfacing, but again, it would be doubtful that they all would have been transferred on paper to another station. Obviously, this is conjecture on my part. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all, much appreciated. The article has been updated. Gavbadger (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Further all, after checking the 16 SQN summary (which i didn't know you could access), it seems 16 Squadron was moved to Butz because Celle's runway was being extended by 200 yards. It also says the Runway and perimeter taxiways at Butz are made from PSP which increases the wear on tyres. Gavbadger (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Jefford 2001, p. 53.
^ Halley, James J. (1988). The squadrons of the Royal Air Force & Commonwealth 1918-1988. Tonbridge: Air-Britain. pp. 50, 168, 219. ISBN 0-85130-164-9.

Future submarine class: Successor?

Regarding the Type 212 submarine class: Is the Type 212CD submarine class it's successor, or is it the Type 216 submarine class? Znuddel (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Rhodesian Bush War articles

An area editors with an interest in modern warfare might be interested in working on is the Rhodesian Bush War. We have quite a few articles on this topic, but they're generally pretty bad. In particular, they tend to be blatantly biased towards the white minority Rhodesian government's perspectives and often use questionable or outright unreliable sources (for instance, yesterday I reworked the Operation Eland article yesterday from a version based only on Rhodesian sources that claimed it was a great victory against an insurgent training camp to what I hope is a neutral version that notes that the camp was actually for refugees and the mass killings there have been labelled a war crime and had disastrous political consequences for the Rhodesians). There's a reasonably large literature on this topic that can be tapped. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Do you know of any seminal books on the topic? I’d like to help but I’m less familiar with Southern Africa. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The quality literature is a bit thin, unfortunately. Moorcraft, P. L.; McLaughlin, P. (2010). The Rhodesian War: A Military History seems to be one of the major works on the topic, with an updated edition being released in 2010. Jakkie Cilliers' 1985 work Counter-Insurgency in Rhodesia is available online here and is very useful. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

South African regiments

Roughly 2 years ago, most of the South African Army Reserve units changed their names to reflect modern SA society, as opposed to the colonial and apartheid periods. At first, I undertook the task of changing all of the WP page names, and updating the articles etc. However, acoording to this news article, it appears that the lineage is not going to be carried over to the new regiments, only the establishment; and in effect, once this 'transition period' is over, the old units would have effectively disbanded, and the new units raised with personnel the only thing linking the two. Therefore I would think that the current WP articles be restored to how they were before my changes, and new articles should be created for the new regiments. However I wanted to gain a bit of consensus first: thoughts? Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 11:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. If the personnel carry over, then effectively it's just the same entity with a new name whether it's dropping the 'heritage' or not. (A reverse of Royal Air Force squadrons where a name can be left in abeyance for years and then recreated from a entirely different unit). But making the distinction in lede and infobox could be confusing for readers. There should also be sensitivity to the reasons to be considered. Although the new name could be applying to the old unit (and article) for a period of years, the the most straightforward approach would be to put the unit back at the pre-2019 name and then create a new article under the new unit name, link between the two in the respective ledes to explain how the one was formed from the personnel of the other and that the heritage was left behind. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Endorse reversal of name changes, back to pre-2019 names, and creation of new articles, if, if, lineage, honors, traditions etc, are not to be carried over. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

RAF Clee Hill

I do not know if it known among existing task force members but I would like to draw attention to the existence of a former RAF station that I have not seen listed on the List of former RAF stations nor on the list of Chain Home establishments yet it was surely one of the latter, titled RAF Clee Hill. I only became aware of it tonight when I read a local newspaper article (Shropshire Star, 21 September 2021, also drawing on information from its predecessor newspaper) looking back at 80 years of there being a radar station on Titterstone Clee Hill, into which I have added detail cited to that article, which is on this link:

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/features/2021/09/23/detecting-big-anniversary-for-golfball-landmarks/

In summary it was set up in September 1941 and disbanded in September 1957. There was a hutted camp initially on site, housing between 40-50 RAF personnel but apparently living conditions were so cold half the year eventually the station ceased to be residential in September 1956 and they were allowed to board in Ludlow town and commute onto the site for duty. (The radar station was revived in 1964 but as an establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority.)Cloptonson (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Entries in both articles and redirect to main article created. Gavbadger (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Also do we really need two do different lists for CH stations? We have List of former Royal Air Force stations#Chain Home, Chain Home Low, Chain Home Extra Low, ROTOR and tropo-scatter stations and Chain Home#Chain Home sites? Gavbadger (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Your latter question is better answered those more active than me in the topic (I have no RAF/aviation background so won't pontificate, my intervention being from my general interest in things Shropshire) Meanwhile, thank you for bringing RAF Clee Hill further into the light of Wikipedian day.Cloptonson (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Help Draft:Carey de Bellemare

Hi Folks!! I wonder if it is possible to get some help to reference this article about a general at Draft:Carey de Bellemare. He seems to be quite well known but I can only locate the odd thing on Google Books. Any help is appreaciated. scope_creep^Talk 17:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

You can cite the following to page two of his Base Leonore (French government Legion of Honour records archive) page:

Birth 14 December 1824 at Paris
Appointed Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour 24 June 1886
Ditto Commander 8 July 1881
Ditto Officer 12 March 1862
Ditto Chevalier 28 July 1848
Death 13 September 1905

Unfortunately he's a bit early (later officers have their full service record of every appointment on there) but you can pick a few bits up. For example the second page tells you he was commander of the IX Corps at the time of his appointment as grand officer. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment but if you scroll through the images you will probably find mention of earlier appointments (you'll need some rudimentary French and a reasonable eye for deciphering 19th-century handwriting!) - Dumelow (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, Hog Farm _Talk 02:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Northern Fleet Joint Strategic Command (Russia)#Requested move 16 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northern Fleet Joint Strategic Command (Russia)#Requested move 16 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Reassessment of Antonio Luna

Antonio Luna has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Skjoldbro (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

German East Indian squadron in Batavia, 1913

The above picture has recently been uploaded to Commons. It is described, in German, as:

Dierentium (Zoo/Tierheim) Weltevreden, 27.Januar 1913 Besuch des deutschen ostindischen Geschwaders in Batavia „Scharnhorst“, „Gneisenau“ u.s.w.

which Google translates as:

Dierentium (zoo / animal shelter) Weltevreden, January 27, 1913 Visit of the German East Indian squadron in Batavia "Scharnhorst", "Gneisenau" etc.

I trust that it's of interest, and can be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have added to SMS Gneisenau#East Asia Squadron, which was a bit lacking in images. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice

There is a requested move currently being discussed at Talk:Third English Civil War#Requested move 24 September 2021. fyi - wolf 16:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Need help sorting myth from fact re: 1905 sword duel during Russo-Japanese War

The article Aleksandar Lekso Saičić describes a sword fight between Saičić and a Japanese officer during the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Some of the cited sources are clearly unreliable, while I am unable to accurately judge the other sources as I cannot read any Cyrillic language. Elsewhere on the internet, this is described as a "samurai duel" or similar which is clearly exaggeration. Are there any reliable sources to be found which can shed light on this person/sword duel incident? Thanks for your help. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I can read Cyrillic and I speak Serbo-Croatian so I can help. If you need a translation of a source, feel free to ping me here or leave a message on my talk page. I might try to find some reliable source for this article in the near future. OakMapping (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have AFD'd it as it may not pass notability, and it so dodgy its untrue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review needed

G’day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Uskok-class torpedo boat is all good to go except for a source review. Any help appreciated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Change the name of Mali wedding airstrike

I am asking this here because I know it will never get answered if I ask on the talk page of the article. Do you think a better name for Mali wedding airstrike would be the Bounti wedding airstrike, after all, it occurred in the village of Bounti? it is more precise then Mali wedding airstrike. What if another wedding airstrike occurred in Mali, then the current name would cause confusion.--Garmin21 (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You should still post something on the article's talk page. At least make a short post there pointing to this discussion. I think a location based name would be better and more standard. Someone knowing to look for "Mali wedding" seems unlikely years from now. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion of the 2021 WikiProject Military history coordinator election

The September 2021 coordinator election has concluded. Returning as lead coordinator is Peacemaker67. They are joined as coordinator by CPA-5, Gog the Mild, Hawkeye7, Hog Farm, Iazyges, Indy beetle, Parsecboy, Vami IV, and Zawed. Nick-D was elected as a coordinator emeritus, joining Kirill Lokshin, Roger Davies, TomStar81, and Ian Rose. Many thanks to the outgoing coordinators for their work during the past year, congratulations for the newcomers, and a bit of both for the returners!

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. Hog Farm _Talk 03:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations and best luck to the 2021-22 tranche and Nick as coord emeritus, big thanks to the 2020-21 team, and well done HF for much leg work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Doolittle Raid servicemen captured by Japan?

Could someone with more knowledge of the topic look at this? The section has been tagged as largely unsourced since April 17. Bix's Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan (not a book that is likely to paint Japan or its emperor in a better light than Wikipedia should) seems to be very much at odds with our account. I was going to leave two small tags with short rationales, but figured giving a detailed explanation of the contradiction would be required, and as I wrote out the two versions (Bix's account, and the conclusion readers are very likely to draw from our account) it just got longer and longer. If folks on here think it's too long, I'll cut it and post it here instead (or if it gets resolved quickly I'll just cut it); personally, if someone else posted such a tag with such a rationale, I would probably thank them for going into detail, but I know others don't necessarily feel the same way (and some don't like tags at all, especially when the section tag theoretically covers the same ground).

Anyway, if anyone needs my input, please ping me; I'm not on Wikipedia much these days (not busy or wikistressed, just enjoying real life more than normal), so I may well not see it otherwise.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Mention of Boeing RE-3A electronic intelligence gathering variant should be readded to Boeing E-3 Sentry

Dear all, yesterday I discovered a variant of the Boeing E-3A Sentry that I'd never heard of; an electronic intelligence gathering version flown by the Saudis. I went to WP eager to learn about this unusual aircraft, but found no mention of it whatsoever. I was frankly very surprised -- the aviation experts here are usually pretty good. So I clicked around, found https://theaviationist.com/2021/09/30/rsaf-re-3a-raf-waddington/ about a recent transfer across the Atlantic, corroborated by our Royal Saudi Air Force article which lists the RE-3A with 19 Squadron, and added a note to the variants section of the article.

I was surprised to be reverted by Mark83 with the edit summary "Undid revision 1047627725 by Buckshot06 (talk) Happy to discuss this further of course, but this doesn't feel right to me. This article is about AWACS. The RSAF R-E3A started life as tankers to support RSAF E-3s (KE-3As). These were modified into Rivet Joint-comparable aircraft. Therefore they are more relevant for discussion at this article. The E-3 part of the desingation is an historical quirk."

Now there is no technical entry for the RE-3A variant anywhere on Wikipedia. This constitutes a gap in our coverage of 21st-century Western military aircraft, which is generally among our most excellent subjects of coverage, given WP's systemic contributor bias. WP should have an entry on such aircraft, and the Boeing E-3 Sentry article is the logical place to look. To go looking at EC-135 or RC-135 when one knows nothing more than the 'RE-3A' designation seems illogical to me. I would strongly suggest that mention of the RE-3A variant be readded back into the Boeing E-3 Sentry article. What do others think? Will copy this to WT:MILHIST (now here done) and WT:AVIATION.

Please make all comments at Talk:Boeing E-3 Sentry. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Cape Colony Copyright Status

I found an ebook about Basutoland which has a bunch of photos and drawings of Basuto and Cape Colony military commanders and administrators from the 1880s e.g. Morosi, Lerotholi etc. The book does not list who the author of the photos/drawings is or when they were made. What would the appropriate copyright tag be for Commons?--Catlemur (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The images probably fall under the same copyright provisions stated in the first couple of pages of book, unless you can track down their original source, e.g. government entity, released to public etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Catlemur: If the images were created and published in the territories now occupied by South Africa, the page at c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Africa may be useful. For the South African copyright tag you can rely on anonymous creation rule of "first publication plus 50 years." The US copyright tag may be more tricky. Where and when was the book published? If it was published after 1925, are there any clues about earlier publication? There may be reasons that we can support upload to Commons even with publication after 1925, but that is the easiest case to justify, if available. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: Some were created on the soil of modern day South Africa but most were made in modern day Lesotho, there is also the issue of Basutoland's shifting legal status from year to year. The book is ^[1], but surely all those photos and sketches were published earlier.--Catlemur (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Cape Colony at that time was a British possession, so wouldn't UK copyright laws apply? Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Best to ask at c:Commons:Village Pump/Copyright. There is a lot of experience there in handling complex copyright questions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Burman, Sandra (1981). Chiefdom Politics and Alien Law: Basutoland under Cape Rule 1871-1884. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-349-04639-3.

"Dachau liberation reprisals" moved to "Dachau liberation incident"

FYI. Summarily moved per title. Talk page not moved... (Hohum ^@) 00:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum: 1) Cut-and-paste move reverted [15] 2) new page made into redirect [16] 3) culprit warned [17]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 15:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

GA class review 4 Oct 2021

I just finished a GA review of John Savage (soldier). I have been writing WPMILHIST articles for many years, but they are mostly B class. I have only done 18 GA reviews so I have some questions. Will one of the coordinators please comment below. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

John Savage: I noticed that almost all of the citations lack the book's date of publication. Is this a requirement?
John Savage: I thought I read somewhere that GA articles should not have "bare urls". I cannot seem to find that. Is this a requirement?
1st Prussian Infantry Regiment is also submitted for GA class review. It includes text like this: "1 x Captain, 1 x First Lieutenant, 2 x Second Lieutenants, 12 x NCOs". The use of x seems incorrect, like using & in place of "and". I think this text should read, "1 Captain, 1 First Lieutenant, 2 Second Lieutenants, 12 NCOs". I did a B class review on an article that used the same x notation and asked the submitter not to do that. I'm surprised to see it used in an article submitted for GA review. Is the use of x in this way acceptable? ("Wellington said he wanted 80,000 x infantry & 10,000 x cavalry & Perceval approved it.")
I know that one can submit an article for GA review, even if there has been no B class review. In the past, these articles were usually very well written. But lately, I'm seeing articles submitted for GA review (bypassing B class) that have obvious issues. Would it be acceptable to fail the article and ask the nominator to first go through a B class review? Djmaschek (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

- @Djmaschek: - Every GA reviewer does things a little differently, but since I've done over 300 GA reviews, I'd say I have a good idea how things are generally done.

1.) Yes, all books should generally include the date of publication, to tell if they are recent. For instance, if all of the sources in an article are from the 1800s, that is concerning as it may not reflect recent scholarship. I also see that most of the books in the Savage article don't include publishers. Citations in GAs should also include the publishers, so that you can assess reliability - if the works are self-published, or through a publisher with a poor reputation or a history of dubious material, they are likely only reliable in certain circumstances.

2.) I don't know where (or if) it's codified, but GAs should not include bare urls. If the webpage is moved, for instance, it can be almost impossible to determine what the original source was if all we have is the url. Also, this is another situation where the publisher needs included so you can assess reliability. It's really pretty minimal effort to fix an individual bare url in most cases

3.) I don't think that notation is appropriate writing style. I wouldn't even assess something as B-class that was written in that fashion; that's not how you write in an encyclopedia. As an aside, that Prussian Infantry article is sourced very heavily to a self-published book, and the National Book Network may not be a great publisher, either. Those sources need heavy scrutiny before passing as GA.

4.) B-class is not necessary as a prelude to GA. I generally don't send my articles through B-class unless it's subject matter I'm not super familiar with (such as CSS Tuscarora, which you recently B-class assessed for me). If there are significant obvious issues, then the GA review can be quick-failed. The nominator can't be forced to go through B-class, but you can recommend it.

That's my thoughts. Hog Farm _Talk 05:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

RE a quick fail, I have done that a few times where it was clearly obvious the article was not up to snuff and a considerable amount of work is required to bring it up to standard. Rather than doing a full review, perhaps raise a general comment regarding the quality and reliability of the sourcing and any other clearly obvious issues and propose that it be failed to allow the remedial work to be done outside of the constraints of the GA process. Zawed (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The submitter can ask for a peer review to help correct the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

At GA level, bare URLs are permitted. Wikipedia:Good article criteria, Criteria 2a: Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source. In the discussion that added this to the GA criteria, there was strong support for disallowing bare URLs, but the closure did not include it. Bare URLs {tq|do not count as a "consistent citation style"}} (WP:CITEVAR), but that is not required at GA. However, bare URLs do not pass our B1 criterion for B class. (WP:MILMOS#CITESTYLE) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Defense of Beijing

Hi. I don't normally do military history articles but I thought I would give it a shot. Seeing if anyone can review this and see if it is ready for article mainspace. -Imcdc (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Went through a copyedit, and I think it's probably ready for mainspace (though I'm not an AfC reviewer), but I've identified two issues:

In the closing paragraph, I changed 1957 to 1457, as this is the century that the rest of the article takes place in, but I've not studied this before so it might not be right.
The phrase "it could be argued" sounds like it might be WP:OR, and would suggest changing it to something equivalent to "certain historians have argued". Loafiewa (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi all. I finally got this article approved. That said, I'm not very familiar with history articles, nevermind ones about conflicts of the Ming Dynasty. So if anyone has items to add on, please do help. I've tried much harder on this than many of my other articles -Imcdc (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Elmslie Falchion/messer typology help needed

Looking for help from someone with an institutional JSTOR account. A section of the article Falchion referring to the Elmslie typology has been removed by an editor on the perfectly correct grounds that it was not cited to a reliable source. The difficulty is that this typology has only really been discussed by its author on line, so discussions are in online forums, blogs and so on. Yet it is considered by the arms and armour community as a legitimate typological reference, so we'd be remiss not to at least mention it in the wiki article.

The one possible RS published source is in Lisa Deutscher,Mirjam Kaiser, Sixt WetzlerThe Sword: Form and Thought <https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvfrxrbx>

I believe it is in this article

Iason-Eleftherios Tzouriadis “What is the Riddle of Steel?”: Problems of Classification and Terminology in the Study of Late Medieval Swords(pp. 3-11) But I have no access to this article. Is anyone with one of our wiki JSTOR accounts (or an institutional one) able to have a look, confirm presence (you are looking for a diagram in English and German) and provide a page ref?

Many thanks. Monstrelet (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The only image present in the Tzouriadis chapter is "Swords: The Development of their Straight Forms during the Centuries", a sword evolution tree by Bashford Dean, on p. 7. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I think the issue is a confusion of books with the same title (and a shared author). The typology is in this book

Barbara Grotkamp-Schepers;Isabell Immel; Peter Johnsson; Sixt Wetzler Das Schwert - Gestalt und Gedanke = The sword - form and thought Solingen Deutsches Klingenmuseum 2015

I'd thought one was a translation of the other, but it appears not. Thanks again. Monstrelet (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Formosa Expedition

Just randomly came across this article. I noticed the result Partial United States victory. But it doesn't seem to really match the content or tone of the article which seems to imply the mission was a failure.

Should there be any changes to it? -Imcdc (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice catch. I have boldly changed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

New article request: Weapons diversion

Hi all

I'm not very knowledgable on the military at all, I recently watched this news story about the capture and use of US weapons by the Taliban in Afghanistan and found out about the term Weapons diversion, where one army's weapons fall in to the hands of another army. Would anyone be interested in writing the article? I assume there is a long history of this as well as being done recently.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Attention required at Yom Kippur War

Somebody has made a request on talk (Talk:Yom_Kippur_War#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_17_August_2021) to change the |result= within the infobox. I have no knowledge about this specific topic, and their other post was WP:TLDR, but anybody with expertise and/or experience in this subject area should feel free to chime in. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Second War of Scottish Independence

Second War of Scottish Independence seems to be experiencing some disagreement as to what should be in the infobox against "Result". Some further opinions may be helpful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Mozambican War of Independence

I have nominated Mozambican War of Independence 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Handling duplicate entry at List of ships of the Confederate States Navy

CSS Pickens is listed as a gunboat here, while CSS Robert McClelland appears under the CSN support ships section for cutters. These are the same vessel, although the Robert McClelland name was changed when it entered Confederate service and is basically never used that I've seen. Technically the vessel was a Confederate States revenue cutter, but for all practical purposes it was used as a gunboat in its one battle (Battle of the Head of Passes). Obviously, there shouldn't be separate items for Pickens and Robert McClelland, but where should it be put? Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

CSS Pickens was originally USRC Robert McClelland. That is where the confusion seem to originate. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Military foraging

Is anyone aware of an article on this topic that can be linked to? Our article on foraging is solely about animals, and I'm not finding an article about the military practice. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Military logistics has a single mention ("Historically supplies for an army were first acquired by foraging or looting, especially in the case of food and fodder, although if traveling through a desolated region or staying in one place for too long resources could quickly be exhausted.") British military rations during the French and Indian War also has a one sentence mention ("While marching through populated areas, the soldiers frequently resorted to foraging, often a euphemism for theft and robbery of food from the citizenry.[9]") History of military nutrition could probably be an interesting place to cover this (short of a specific article on Military foraging), although it does not mention it at this time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, that military nutrition article needs a lot of work, or a total rewrite. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep. It even managed to cite the Daily Fail (the same information is mentioned in Oxford Reference, but that's besides the point in this case). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Except for the obvious easter-egginess of it, you could just link to looting, as essentially that is what is involved in many cases, as often no compensation is made. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I would think that looting has a specific legal definition - and that foraging does not fall within it. Looting has the connotation of stealing for personal gain (even if that gain is having sufficient to eat and a horse that has been fed). It is sometimes (?usually) frowned upon by the command structure of a military force, as it is tantamount to a breakdown in discipline. Conversely, foraging is usually/often carried out by troops given specific orders to go out and find feed and fodder (even if those orders are given at a relatively low level). And there are the occasions when the person who has food taken from them gets a chit that allows them to claim compensation. It might be rare, but it did happen. The key effort with foraging is the act of going and finding the food - in an area through which other troops have already moved, it may be in short supply. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion of "for personal gain" in the definition of "looting" gets tricky when one considers the organized nature of art theft and looting during World War II. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just dipped into a copy of Cavalry by Louis Nolan (ISBN 978-1-59416-648-8). It seems to confirm my view that foraging is a carefully organised military activity (at least according to the soldier who wrote a definitive manual on the use of cavalry).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It was a matter of policy in Napoleonic France:

During the early Revolutionary Wars it was impossible for France to feed its armies, so foraging was adopted out of necessity; its strategic effect was such (armies freed of being tied to slow-moving supply-trains) that even when the Empire could have fed its own troops, the previous system was retained, armies normally carrying only between four and seven days' rations for issue when the enemy was so close as to preclude foraging.

Haythornthwaite, Philip J. (1990). The Napoleonic Source Book. Weidenfeld Military; Guild Edition. p. 175. ISBN 978-0853689690.

Do foraging and looting differ as concepts? I think there's an easy argument to make that what the French did was often more the latter than the former. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at various dictionary definitions, though none of them are particularly clear, "looting" includes (and might focus on) taking non-food/feed items of monetary value, whilst "foraging" is solely about finding what is needed to feed an army and its horses. As the cite above makes clear, stripping the country of food and fodder may be a military tactic, allowing faster marches - but it also has the advantage of preventing the enemy from following your line of march.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

But has the disadvantage of turning the locals against you, unless foraged items are fairly paid for. Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

In the American Civil War, it often involved a forced transaction, although you can argue that getting Confederate money back at a time when it was obvious who was gonna win isn't really compensation. But the practice of food foraging was clearly distinct from, say, the Sacking of Osceola. Hog Farm _Talk 14:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that, as per the quoted sentence from military logistics, foraging should probably include fodder for animals. As such, it might not be too great of a fit for history of military nutrition, which seems to be solely about human nutrition. The above discussion regarding the differences between "foraging" and "looting" also make me wonder whether a suitable article main title should be something along the lines of "living off the land (military)", which would likely encompass both and could include a section on the distinction of the two. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Military foraging (as I already proposed) would already be a good option. Alternatively Foraging (military), but that adds an unnecessary parenthetical. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, I forgot looting already exists. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

How far would this article go? Should it include what one might call anti-foraging campaigns too, or is that purely the domain of articles such as scorched earth? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

As scorched earth is a deliberate strategy against enemies living off the land (or foraging), it would be odd not to mention it as a counter measure when discussing the strategic use of foraging (though perhaps with a main article link). It's fairly clear that any article needs to look at the strategic dimension as well as the operational practicalities (collection, bringing in, protection of foraging parties etc.) Monstrelet (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

British Army brigades

Hello again @Dormskirk: and @SmartyPants22:. I was just adding some categories around, and noticed the page titles are all off. For instance, the 11th Security Force Assistance Brigade has no suffix '(United Kingdom)', though the 20th Armoured Brigade Combat Team (United Kingdom) does. Should they have the suffix or not? Because having the two types are very confusing. You can see why here: Category:Future Soldier. J-Man11 (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Personally, I would go for consistency. Wolf has demonstrated elsewhere that we need the suffixes on these brigade names to avoid confusion with the US Army, so I would put suffixes on all the current brigades. Just my view. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that every instance of "brigade combat team" should have something added (parent division, country, etc) for dab, as there it's become a commonly used name in the US military and also seeing usage in the UK. I don't have an opinion on other units with "brigade" in the name. - wolf 18:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice that File:11 Infantry Brigade Graphic 2020.png has 3PWRR's location as Caternbury instead of Canterbury, which should probably be fixed as well..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

20th Armoured Brigade Combat Team only has a suffix because two days ago it was 20th Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom)?.

The disambiguation rules are clear that a disambiguator is only added when needed to separate from similarly named units.

also when updating the names of these units, the original name should be retained in the lede. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

We decided long ago to pre-emptively disambiguate military units. (WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME) For a discussion of this, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 94#Preemptive disambiguation Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It says to pre-emptively disambiguate "in cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations" but it's not an absolute requirement. '11th Security Force Assistance Brigade' sounds a fairly unique construction so I wouldn't disambig. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree. Disambiguation by nationality is only necessary when the name is not likely to be unique. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll also add that I don't think units should be put in the Future Soldier category as just renaming them doesn't meet the requirement for categorization per guidance given under Wikipedia:Defining. The renaming may be relevant to a list within the Future Soldier article (which is but a stub at the moment). As an analogy, we wouldn't create a category for Childers Reforms and then drop every regiment of the 19th century British Army in it. (update: apparently though there are units in Category:Army 2020) GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

So: what I'm seeing this if there is a reasonable chance there could be a similar designated unit, the disambiguation should be added? J-Man11 (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

If the title is even slightly generic, it needs disambiguation by country. There is a grey area, particularly when the unit title has more than three or four words which arguably might make it unique, but frankly, I would err on the side of disambiguation in most cases. There are nearly two hundred militaries around the world and it is possible that some will coincide. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And with that, all "brigade combat teams", both US & UK should be dab'd with parent unit and country (like how many of the US Amry BCT pages are named now.) jmho - wolf 01:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. My apologies if I hadn't indicated that wasn't something I had issue with. Slightly off topic - when British brigades are no longer in existence what's the right term - have they been 'disbanded', 'disestablished', 'deactivated' or some other word? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The British Army itself seems to use "disbanded" eg. in its outline of the history of the 12th Armoured Brigade Combat Team - Dumelow (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Per above I would err on the side of disambiguation by country if the title is slightly generic, although I don’t think we need both country and parent unit/formation, brigades can change divisions etc (admittedly not frequently during peace time), it’s too much information in a unit/formation title. Cavalryman (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

I agree with you @Cavalryman:, but the reason for the United States change is because the brigade titles are used for several divisions and not 'independent' like in most other armies. But on average usually they should have the disambiguation, and it would make sense. J-Man11 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If further disambiguation is required to differentiate then yes it should be done. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC).

Ok, will do, I'll tag this discussion probably if I'm uncertain or name changes are needed / expected. J-Man11 (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Old or new list?

Should an existing list be edited to improve it or should it be replaced with a new list that has less accurate information arranged differently? I'm hoping for a NPOV at the new list's talk page.

I'm not a member but much of what I have created and edited is. I'm coming here because it's his turf and I don't need a RfC, it can be handled in-house. Sammy D III (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

After all those years and edits not one person posted a single word in reply. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Enfield revolver

This one's an older A-class article that has recently be nominated for A-class reassessment. Would this catch the interest if any of our firearms folks (or anyone else)? Hog Farm _Talk 04:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Army career of the Duke of Richmond

I was thinking about expanding the army career section for Charles Lennox, 4th Duke of Richmond. Reading his ODNB page, it says that after he duelled with Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany he transferred to the 35th Regiment of Foot: "Lennox subsequently exchanged with Lord Strathnairn his captaincy in the guards for the command (lieutenant-colonel) of the 35th foot, then stationed in Edinburgh". My issue is that I can find no information on who Lord Strathnairn was; this event presumably occurs in 1789 but the only Lord Strathnairn I can find is Hugh Rose, 1st Baron Strathnairn, who wasn't alive yet! Any ideas? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It's Lord George Strathaven according to the Gazette [18] so ~~probably talking about George Gordon, 5th Duke of Gordon as Strathaven was a subsidiary title of the Dukes of Gordon. Nthep (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)~~ wrong George - this one George Gordon, 9th Marquess of Huntly (see s:Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Gordon, George (1761-1853) for a military biog) Nthep (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! I like to think that ODNB is a very reliable source, so it's a little worrying to come across such an obvious mistake as this... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Help with GA Review

I am currently reviewing Telangana Rebellion at GAN and the review is essentially completed save for the image review. The images are in public domain in India but they have the "You must also include a United States public domain tag" on Commons. Are they good to go or do they need a second copyright tag? Regards.--Catlemur (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I bet @Nikkimaria: will be able to assist you in that regard. They have conducted a lot of image reviews on articles I have worked to promote and are very knowledgeable in this area.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

They will need a second tag - images on Commons have to be free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

A-Class Article

Does this project use Template:A-Class article for articles rated by this project? I'm asking since I started a Tfd for it and one user says we may need to hold on to it for the time over an idea that started back in 2008. Even though the template isn't used anywhere. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: - This project does not, as MILHIST A-class assessment is a project-level assessment, not a sitewide one. Hog Farm _Talk 04:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding that template was proposed many years ago, but as Hog Farm notes it turned out to not be possible as project-specific ratings can't be displayed that way (which I reckon is a shame given our A-class review process is excellent). A Consensus at at Wikipedia-wide discussion to adopt these tags is needed first. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Einar Mäkinen

Hi all, I've been working on Draft:Einar Mäkinen and would greatly appreciate any feedback/comments/improvements/review on it. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Good work. I've made some suggestions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

A-class articles delisted from GA

I have delisted a few articles that hold this WIkiprojects A-class rating from being Good Articles. The first one was Home Army and I have just delisted Napoleon. I was wondering what suits your project when it comes to delisted A class articles. I could remove the A-class rating when I delist them or flag them here for independent review by your wikiproject. Or, as I have done so far, just leave the A-class rating. Aircorn (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Aircorn, it would be great if you could flag them here, and we will reassess. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn and Peacemaker67: here are some that I'm aware of. These articles have been delisted from GA / FA, and are listed as A-class:

Note: Joachim Helbig is still listed as GA, even though it was delisted in 2016. Perhaps the delisting editor did not complete the step of noting the delisting on the talk page -- ?

--K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: It looks like I missed the MilHist rating.[19] Aircorn (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I forgot about that one. Back then it looks like I just changed the rating to B. Happy to keep as an A and flag any future ones. Aircorn (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's the full list of A-class articles that are delisted GAs. It isn't very long:

Enfield revolver

From a quick glance, this looks like it's a long ways from meeting the A-Class criteria. Uncited stuff, and I'm not sure it's comprehensive. Hog Farm _Talk 23:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've opened the reassessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Enfield revolver. Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hans Philipp

The article was reassessed once (March to June 2019) following its delisting from GA in March 2019. Back then, the A-class reassement resulted in keep. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)

The article was reassessed once (February to April 2019) following its delisting from GA in February 2019. Back then, the A-class reassement resulted in keep. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

this has been absolutely butchered since then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, it could be a bit of a pain, but we could produce a list of A-class promoted before say like 2010, and give them a skim to make sure none are badly deficient. I think WP:URFA/2020's delisted a few of the older A's from FA, and one has since been demoted at ACR. Hog Farm _Talk 17:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's the full list (with dates of promotion):

7th Infantry Division (United States) (12 July 2009)
11th Airborne Division (United States) (17 July 2008)
24th Infantry Division (United States) (12 August 2009)
51st Army (Russia) (05 February 2008)
173rd Airborne Brigade (05 April 2008)
1965 South Vietnamese coup (21 August 2010)
2008 invasion of Anjouan (31 July 2008)
Air Combat Group RAAF (29 July 2008)
Albert Kesselring (23 May 2009)
Alexandru Averescu (16 October 2007)
Arab-Byzantine wars (17 September 2007)
Armed Forces of Liberia (30 August 2010)
Army of the Danube (15 March 2010)
Arrow (Israeli missile) (11 November 2009)
Australian light destroyer project (09 April 2009)
Battle of Aachen (29 January 2009)
Battle of Artemisium (18 October 2010)
Battle of Berlin (22 September 2008)
Battle of Bita Paka (25 December 2009)
Battle of Chochiwon (24 April 2010)
Battle of Chonan (23 April 2010)
Battle of Fort Donelson (04 October 2008)
Battle of Fort Washington (03 March 2009)
Battle of Gettysburg, first day (24 September 2006)
Battle of Gettysburg, second day (21 September 2006)
Battle of Kapyong (25 October 2010)
Battle of Magersfontein (04 December 2010)
Battle of Marathon (18 October 2010)
Battle of Marengo (29 September 2010)
Battle of Ostrach (28 December 2009)
Battle of P'ohang-dong (28 July 2010)
Battle of Pyongtaek (10 April 2010)
Battle of Salamis (18 October 2010)
Battle of Sangju (1950) (22 December 2010)
Battle of Slater's Knoll (30 April 2010)
Battle of Taegu (04 October 2010)
Battle of the Bowling Alley (07 December 2010)
Battle of the Plains of Abraham (28 August 2007)
Battle of Vaslui (19 November 2007)
Battle of Vigo Bay (27 October 2008)
Battle of Wau (02 March 2009)
Battles of the Kinarot Valley (16 February 2009)
Bob Chappuis (09 January 2009)
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (03 September 2010)
Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis (19 August 2008)
Bombardment of Papeete (13 February 2010)
British Army during World War I (08 July 2009)
Cambodian campaign (15 April 2007)
Cambodian Civil War (31 January 2007)
Camp Chapman attack (12 September 2010)
Citadel of Saigon (14 July 2008)
Clarence Jeffries (22 October 2008)
Collins-class submarine (10 November 2009)
Commandos (United Kingdom) (08 August 2010)
Early thermal weapons (14 April 2008)
Easter Offensive (17 July 2007)
Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld (21 August 2009)
Elmer Gedeon (10 January 2009)
Enfield revolver (26 August 2007)
Erich Hartmann (06 May 2008)
Evacuation of East Prussia (29 December 2007)
First Battle of Maryang-san (13 February 2010)
First Battle of Naktong Bulge (12 April 2010)
First Battle of Târgu Frumos (04 April 2009)
First Macedonian War (13 November 2007)
Florida-class battleship (05 January 2010)
Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.) (06 September 2007)
Fort Jackson (Virginia) (04 October 2007)
Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.) (22 August 2007)
Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze (09 January 2010)
George Alan Vasey (26 January 2009)
George Howell (soldier) (15 January 2008)
George Ingram (10 December 2008)
Gia Long (27 March 2009)
Hadong Ambush (20 October 2010)
Hans-Joachim Marseille (13 January 2008)
Heinrich Bär (03 January 2009)
Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein (24 April 2010)
Heuschrecke 10 (01 March 2008)
Hill 262 (19 March 2009)
HMAS Sydney (R17) (17 March 2010)
HMS Ledbury (L90) (02 July 2007)
HMS Liverpool (C11) (05 October 2010)
Ho Chi Minh trail (23 October 2006)
Home Army (22 March 2008)
Horses in warfare (27 November 2008)
I Corps (United States) (03 September 2009)
Indonesian occupation of East Timor (25 February 2008)
Jacques Le Gris (26 August 2007)
James Cannan (05 December 2009)
January 1964 South Vietnamese coup (26 September 2010)
Japanese battleship Hiei (11 December 2010)
Japanese battleship Kirishima (15 September 2010)
Japanese battleship Kongō (22 October 2010)
Jean de Carrouges (02 September 2007)
John Kourkouas (18 September 2010)
John Northcott (22 April 2009)
John S. McCain Jr. (24 January 2009)
Jon Burge (04 March 2009)
Joseph Maxwell (06 October 2008)
Kaunas Fortress (24 August 2008)
Keith Miller (25 February 2009)
King's Regiment (Liverpool) (14 September 2006)
Kongō-class battlecruiser (28 April 2010)
Lâm Văn Phát (16 October 2010)
Landing at Saidor (21 January 2009)
Landing on Emirau (23 April 2009)
Late Roman army (04 September 2008)
Le Paradis massacre (05 February 2008)
Lê Văn Duyệt (05 March 2010)
Lewis McGee (soldier) (10 October 2009)
Lexington-class battlecruiser (24 December 2008)
Lindsay Hassett (26 October 2010)
Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne (14 November 2009)
M22 Locust (05 October 2009)
Massachusetts in the American Civil War (07 August 2010)
Max-Hellmuth Ostermann (15 January 2010)
Michael J. Daly (21 February 2010)
Michael P. Murphy (19 March 2010)
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 (31 March 2010)
Military career of Keith Miller (18 February 2009)
Moro River Campaign (12 April 2009)
MS West Honaker (09 October 2008)
Napoleon (16 August 2008)
Nguyễn Văn Nhung (09 February 2010)
No. 3 Commando (21 August 2009)
No. 6 Commando (24 June 2010)
North Yemen Civil War (03 January 2009)
Operation Barrel Roll (09 March 2007)
Operation Coburg (02 October 2009)
Operation Commando Hunt (05 November 2006)
Operation Crimp (07 December 2010)
Operation Deny Flight (15 April 2009)
Operation Freshman (06 March 2009)
Operation Igloo White (04 April 2007)
Operation Lüttich (22 September 2008)
Operation Mole Cricket 19 (16 February 2009)
Operation Pleshet (21 August 2009)
Operation Postmaster (05 September 2010)
Operation Sandblast (13 April 2010)
Operation Sky Monitor (25 June 2009)
Operation Totalize (28 January 2009)
Operation Windsor (19 January 2010)
Operation Winter Storm (11 January 2009)
Order of Saint Hubert (18 April 2010)
Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short (08 April 2010)
Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945) (29 July 2010)
Panzer IV (28 August 2008)
Patrie (airship) (30 December 2009)
Percy Cherry (04 October 2008)
Percy Statton (17 January 2009)
Petlyakov Pe-3 (21 April 2010)
Petlyakov Pe-8 (11 January 2010)
Powder Alarm (25 February 2009)
Red Tail Squadron (03 February 2010)
Republic F-84 Thunderjet (31 December 2006)
Revolt of the Comuneros (22 November 2008)
Robert Peverell Hichens (16 January 2010)
Roman-Parthian War of 58-63 (13 April 2009)
Roy Burston (09 April 2009)
Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry (18 April 2007)
Rupert Downes (03 June 2009)
Sd.Kfz. 10 (09 June 2009)
Second Battle of Kharkov (07 September 2006)
Siege of Fort Ticonderoga (1777) (22 June 2009)
Siege of Kimberley (03 September 2009)
Sihanouk Trail (01 November 2006)
SM U-5 (Austria-Hungary) (14 December 2008)
SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary) (29 January 2009)
SM U-68 (25 February 2009)
SM UB-10 (30 April 2009)
SM UB-14 (03 May 2009)
SM UB-16 (08 May 2009)
SM UB-43 (21 March 2009)
SM UB-45 (05 March 2009)
Smedley Butler (21 January 2010)
Smolensk War (24 August 2008)
SS American (1900) (01 June 2009)
SS Black Osprey (05 November 2008)
SS Iowan (04 October 2008)
SS Panaman (22 September 2008)
SS Timothy Bloodworth (09 January 2009)
Structural history of the Roman military (12 July 2007)
Sukhoi Su-25 (29 August 2007)
Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria (18 October 2010)
Sydney Rowell (16 February 2009)
T-26 (01 February 2007)
Teddy Sheean (21 May 2009)
Tet Offensive (21 October 2007)
Third Battle of Kharkov (20 October 2008)
Trương Định (30 November 2007)
Tucker-class destroyer (13 May 2009)
U-3-class submarine (Austria-Hungary) (26 January 2009)
U-5-class submarine (Austria-Hungary) (14 February 2009)
U-20-class submarine (16 February 2009)
United States battleship retirement debate (10 August 2008)
USS Bridgeport (AD-10) (12 April 2010)
USS Comfort (AH-3) (23 April 2008)
USS Hawaii (CB-3) (06 January 2010)
USS Mercy (AH-4) (10 August 2008)
USS Texas (BB-35) (08 February 2009)
USS Triton (SSRN-586) (20 March 2010)
Wallachian Revolution of 1848 (19 October 2007)
Walter Model (18 July 2007)
Walter Nowotny (25 February 2009)
Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive (06 July 2010)
William Stacy (01 April 2008)
Willie Gillis (26 January 2009)
Wolfgang Lüth (10 April 2009)
Yannis Makriyannis (13 January 2007)
Yermolayev Yer-2 (27 February 2010)
Yorktown-class gunboat (26 May 2009)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could look at the 2006 and 2007 ones and see how they look? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - I've got these as a list at User:Hog Farm/ACR refresh; I'm open to any ideas for how to have an organized process of this. Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

What about dividing them up by topic? I reckon the naval coves would knock over checking the ship ones pretty quick, the Aussies could check the Australian ones etc. If articles are identified that need to be looked at for a review, let's do that in groups of no more than three please. Otherwise it will overwhelm the ACR process. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated William Henry Harrison 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. Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Downgrading Nuclear weapon design

I've gone ahead and downgraded Nuclear weapon design (previously B class)for failing to meet requirements 1 and 3. The article is mess with huge blocks of uncited information and is very awkwardly structured. I have been hoping to rewrite it myself at some point, but it's a pretty big project and I find myself at a loss on where to start.

If there's anyone who wants to help, feel free to say so.Kylesenior (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Nicely spotted, definitely Start. Hawkeye7 has some expertise in this area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Helion & Company - Reliable or not?

Hi, I've been wondering whether or not the publisher Helion & Company is reliable. As someone who's recently been working on a lot of SS-related stuff, they've got some books that would be of great use to me. Books from Helion are cited in GAs like Operation Barbarossa, but they seem to publish a lot of "cheap militaria" (as described by User:Vami_IV). Thanks, Roniius^{talk to me} 07:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

As with all sources, it may depend on the individual book and author and on the sort of material that is being cited. I don’t know anything about their editorial processes, and on face value they appear to publish popular history rather than serious history. I have brought four Balkan Waffen-SS mountain division articles to FA, and I don’t remember using any Helion books. I suggest you raise this at WP:RSN and post a link here, so interested Milhist editors can comment if they wish. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The two books cited in Barbarossa published by Helion were written by David Glantz, one of the preeminent historians of the eastern front. Absolutely nothing to worry about with those. Parsecboy (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The leading Australian military historian Peter Stanley has also had a couple of excellent books published by Helion [20], and he recently posted on Twitter noting that he found the company to be good to work with. That said, I've seen some not-great stuff published by the company. I'd suggest a case by case approach. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Much like Osprey, I think their quality is variable, and definitely appeals to the fanboy crowd. I own and have made extensive use of their book on war in Uganda. In my experience the books usually do a good job of citing their sources, but often suffer from poor copyediting. For something as serious and contentious as SS units it might be worth seeing if there are better sources. But I wouldn’t dismiss them as outright unreliable. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of their Africa@War books are clearly reliable. That said, the best of authors can make errors or be deceived.. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that the Osprey comparison is fair, though Helion does seem more likely to attract top-tier authors than Osprey, presumably as it doesn't force a format on them. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking closer, I think it is a fair bit above Osprey. For example, Andrew Bamford, Christopher Brice, and Christopher Duffy all have PhDs in history and several books with Helion. Very much about who the author is, and given the quality historians who have been published by them, I don't think the publishing house itself is dubious. Few academics would publish with a house that was dubious. I suggest looking at the info available on the author of each book and establishing their bonafides. Re: Waffen-SS units Mark Yerger (read the article) is also published by Helion, and he should only be used with caution and only for basic facts (unit structure, equipment, personnel, ranks, awards etc) certainly nothing that is likely to be challenged like success in battle or casualties. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That is interesting. I'm not familiar with the other two authors, but Duffy is one of the leading experts on early modern European military history, especially the 17th and 18th centuries and has written some excellent works on other military history topics. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I am familiar with this publisher, and would say they are a mixed bag. They certainly do some high-quality reliable source books and then they do some popular reading books, as well. One must use discernment and scrutiny and review the book in which they are interested, one by one. Some, of course easier to tell than others. Kierzek (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I've found the same as Kierzek that it's a mixed bag but there are some good authors in there. Keith-264 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

G'day Roniius, do you feel like you've got some good guidance from this discussion? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say so. I'll look out for the authors when I check out books from Helion. Roniius^{talk to me} 07:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Why?

@Keith-264: What do you mean? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Why invent them? I can't see a purpose. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean to ask why they exist? See WP:SHORTDESC, especially the section "Purposes". -Ljleppan (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, don't the people who do this have anything better to do? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Strange redirect

The link for the classicist Courtenay Edward Stevens redirects to his wife, the author Leila Buckley. It seems to me that this should be removed, leaving a red link which will hopefully one day be populated. Could someone either do this or tell me how to? Or explain why it should be left as is. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:Redirects for Discussion would be the avenue to propose the deletion. Loafiewa (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gog, I found an obituary in the Times and created a basic biography. I don't suppose you know any more about him? I would particularly welcome any info on his publications - Dumelow (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Dumelow, you are a star. He published Stevens, Courtenay Edward (1957). Marcus, Gratian, Constantine. Pavia, Italy: Administrazione di Athenaeum, University of Pavia. OCLC 1169915008., which is how I came across him. Some more here, note the last one. It seems to contain useful biographical detail, but I can't find an on line version. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog, there's a lot more publications there than I expected! I have no idea which are the more important so I'll leave it be for now - Dumelow (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I find using Google Scholar to see how many times each work is cited a useful if rough and ready way of assessing importance - see here. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Result in infobox: Siege of Ostend

Pls see discussion at Siege of Ostend#Result to be reported in the infobox. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Two Iwo Jima airfields are gone, and one remains - but which?

During WWII, Iwo Jima had three airfields. One is still in use today.

But which one?

Hi all, does anyone have sources that can be added to Central Field (Iwo Jima)? Years ago, an editor retitled it from "North Field" after this talk page post, but I can't find much online that supports either position. Notably, the main Iwo Jima article still has the names reversed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the book Pacific Legacy ISBN 9780789207616 p 231 "The old airfield No. 2 now vastly expanded, is the only airstrip still in use today." and p 236 "The Americans developed and used both Japanese airfields (sometimes referred to as Motoyama No. 1 and Motoyama No. 2 , their Japanese designations) for the rest of the war. Airfield No. 1 was subsequently abandoned after the war in favor of the larger available area for runways and base facilities provided by airfield No. 2which is still in use today." So the current airfield is Airfield No. 2/Central Field as shown on this Landing Plan: File:Iwo Jima - Landing Plan.jpg. I have added the relevant detail and another ref to the page and will do some more cleanup next week. Mztourist (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mztourist - your help is very much appreciated. I didn't find that landing plan in my searches, probably because I was specifically searching for North/Central Field! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Talks about my editing with a BOT...

Thread closed to allow for discussion to continue at a single venue: User talk:Adamdaley. DeCausa (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2021 (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.

There has been talks going on, on my talkpage about me running a BOT for my edits. I do not have a bot running, they are all manual edits. So if I get banned from editing and trying to clean up excess wastage in WikiProject Banners. There will only be one thing left if I don't get banned and that would be me having to either close my account or just stop editing altogether. So in my time at WikiProject Military History, it has been a good time to know the majority of people who have given their time for the WikiProject MILHIST. Appreciation Adamdaley (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's official. I'm done with all these critical nit-picking with some people. Thanks for the "Highs" and "Lows" on WP:MILHIST. It's been nice knowing all of you, this is the last edit I'll be making. If I get asked for what Wikipedia stands for, it's not a positive review to people I know in reality. Appreciation (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Adamdaley are you sure you wouldn't prefer to talk about it rather than take drastic action? You are a long standing and hard working editor, so I'm sure the project owes you that. Monstrelet (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue lie in unnecessary changes eg converting all instances in the banner template from '=yes' to '=y' coupled with an unhelpful edit summary. Personally I disagree with removing Canada and adding Early-modern to a naval officer who was commander in Canada and only active in the Napoleonic period.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Adamdaley is a gnomish editor, particularly interested in classifying and rating things. We need such people. Yet I agree, lots of fiddly, seemingly pointless changes are annoying. I'd like to see if there is any chance their work can continue in a way useful to the project while losing the annoying bit. I've seen this editor go through numerous "waves" of enthusiasm and demoralisation over the years, so I'd really like to flag a "duty of care" for the project on this, rather than loosing the hounds. If they still want to go, then it's their choice at the end of the day Monstrelet (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

There is so much space wasted with WikiProject Banners. For example, if I see text that doesn't need to be there or there is a way to limit the text in the Banner, then I do. Hence the B-class WP:MILHIST change from a longer format to the format that you see when I complete it. As for the talk header, I simply take out that space and it then becomes a space less on the talk page. I simply take away the spaces in the WikiProject Banners. So it can either add a little to the Banners or make them smaller or even more defined. I've had some many people that I do wrong when I am just cleaning up or tidying up the talkpages since I do not add content to the articles. Put it simply, I do not want to be blocked, I'd rather leave and not get blocked. To make things even worse, what I've been going through personally in reality I am very vulnerable or in a state that Wikipedia keeps my mind off the reality problems I have been having for the last 14 weeks. Adamdaley (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Adam, it sounds like things have been a bit tough for you for the past several weeks, hang in there. Perhaps see if you can find an alternative focus for your Wikipedia efforts, something that is more tangible (e.g. finding citations etc...) for others to see and notice. Regarding the issue with the Banner, have you ever taken it up on the talk page for the Template to see if can be changed? If you can effect a change there it will be much easier than doing an article at a time. Also there may well be a good reason for the way it is. Regardless, I wish you well and hope things pick up for you. Zawed (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Adamdaley: Yeah Adam, just hang in there. Take a couple days off to get Wikipedia outta your head and relax. Then come back when you're ready and carry on with the work that you've been doing. Don't let anyone drive you off the project with a flaming bridge behind you, just over a minor edit dispute. And, if someone has accused you of running a bot, and you're not, then they should be immediately and indefinitely blocked for being mean to you, and only have the block lifted once a heart-felt apology is posted. Good luck - wolf 01:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Since I do not contribute to articles, I found my little place in cleaning up talkpages. There are hundreds of talkheader and Banner-related clean up that I sometimes remove 500+ bytes of invalid code that is no longer valid for those articles, so someone can visit a talkpage and not get so much information added to the talkpage which would go to their internet usage per month. For the last three months, I have been to hell and back with family-related stuff that the only time I get to not thinking as much about it is when I amuse myself on Wikipedia. Adamdaley (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I may ask everyone to submit their opinion about me, good or bad. Just put it out here. Have your say. I'm being labelled several things, that I'm editing with a bot, or doing drastic things even blackmail. As I've said, I'd rather leave than be blocked. If anyone wants me gone, then by all means say it and I'll close my account. Adamdaley (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Adamdaley. First of all, I'm sorry to hear you are have been going through hard times and wish you and your family only the best. For what it's worth, I do not believe anyone has anything against you personally. At least I don't. I do apologize if something I wrote read like a personal attack, since that was not my intention. What was (is?) being discussed on your talk page were some of your edits that appeared "bot-like", i.e. similar to edits we would expect bots to make. This is not the same as stating you are definitely using a bot. If you say you aren't using one, I see no reason to doubt you. W/r/t "blackmail" I was simply pointing out that saying things like "I'd rather close my account..." is not conductive for the discussion. Please see the section I linked on your talk page. On a personal level, I'd love to see you stay and keep contributing to Wikipedia. At the same time, I hope you can see why others are frustrated by some aspects of your edits, such as re-assessing articles with the message "Cleanup" marked as minor, removing filled B-class criteria with the message "Cleanup" marked as minor, etc. –Ljleppan (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As should be obvious, I don't want Adamdaley to walk. Their contribution behind the scenes has been valuable over the years. However, we all edit as part of a community of volunteers and we do owe it to other members of the project not to cause them problems with our own practice. I would recommend, now some of the apparent conflict has evaporated, that Adamdaley reflects on their practice in light of comments made and consider any changes which would allow them to edit in a comfortable style, keep doing good work but not frustrate other members of the team Monstrelet (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but since a discussion on this matter was already started at User talk:Adamdaley/Archives/2021/November#Talk header, and is still active as I post this, it would probably be best for any further comments to be posted there and to let this thread end (or be closed by an uninvolved party). JMHO - wolf 17:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Rapid-fire assessment with collateral issues

I'm hoping someone at the project with experience in quality assessment could offer some feedback at this user talk page discussion concerning bot-like quality assessment, with some other relatively minor issues mixed in. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up note: section #Proposed solution has been added to the thread. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry ...

Sorry guys, I can no longer help the WikiProject MILHIST with all the new restrictions. You'll have to find someone else to do the work. Adamdaley (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I'm not sure what restrictions you're speaking of. I do however believe this is related to the current discussion on your talk page, along with the thread above (#Talks about my editing with a BOT...) which was also related to the current discussion on your talk page, so I will ask you about this post there. - wolf 07:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ottoman Navy ship identities

What is the correct identity of the paddle steamer "Cartal" which ran aground at Kiliia in July 1877 and was refloated with assistance from "Hiftzi Rahmin" ("The Russians at Sulina". The Times. No. 29234. London. 20 April 1878. col C-D, p. 6. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help))? Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The latter is presumably Hifz-ur Rahman, which was stationed at Sulina during the war; Langensiepen and Güleryüz give the spelling of the former vessel as Kartal, but provide no further details (beyond it being a paddle steamer). Since it's not included in their list of ships, I'd assume it was a commercial vessel. Parsecboy (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Parsecboy. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A "paddle steamer Kartal" is mentioned by Langensiepen and Güleryüz (p6) as picking up the survivors of the gunboat Sünne which was mined and sunk on 8 October 1877 at Sulina. Interestingly a "wooden ship Kartal" is mentioned in Report on the Russian Army and Its Campaigns in Turkey in 1877-1878 Greene 1879 (Page 290) as having "engaged" and driven off a Russian gunboat approaching Sulina the next day, so if it was a commercial vessel it was presumably converted to military use at some point - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Awards in milhist bios

I'm sure this is described in some policy or essay somewhere and I just don't know where. Is there consensus on how to present military awards? I've noticed them on lots of military bios—most recently at Colin_Powell#Awards_and_decorations—and I find them quite unhelpful, generally speaking. Providing a huge list of awards, generally illustrated with large graphics, without any context, seems obtrusive and unencyclopedic—and a borderline violation of WP:PROMO. And yet they are a regular presence on military bios. Would welcome any guidance. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's most certainly not a violation of WP:PROMO! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV, then—a huge section describing how great someone is, with no context, seems against the spirit of those policies. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 12:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This might just be me not looking at other articles enough, but I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of these are on American articles. The need to include large graphics of medals ribbons, badges, and even every single rank insignia a soldier has worn seems ludicrous to me. What's wrong with a simple list at most? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Or, where considered relevant, including them in the prose? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreeing that the Powell page looks bad; I thought the huge chunk of images was the end of the article at first. I don't know whether anything like this is available in the English Wikipedia, but the Finnish Wikipedia has a template for this. See the closed "Ylennykset ja kunniamerkit" ("Promotions and awards") box at the bottom of e.g. this page. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I recently reviewed Harry Crerar for GA and liked the format of having some of the still-significant-but-less-so in a collapsed box in the infobox. Anything really signficant should be in the prose, and I'm not even sure that we need to mention the most minor ones at all. Hog Farm _Talk 15:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

How on earth is it WP:NPOV either? It's merely stating which awards someone received. That's fact. There's no lack of neutrality in it. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with these huge banks of medal ribbons in articles, although to someone like me with an interest in them they are indeed of interest, but you seem to be coming at it from a rather POV angle yourself. It's not "describing how great someone is". It's merely reporting in visual terms which medals they were awarded. Which for a member of a uniformed service is a notable part of their bio, just as for an actor you would report which awards they had won or even been nominated for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies, listing awards is inline with the content guide. I have noticed a bit of an ambiguous approach to the subject of awards and decorations. In some instance like Albert Kesselring, Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb and Joachim Peiper, the award sections have been deleted, while Audie Murphy gets an entire standalone article dedicated to Audie Murphy honors and awards. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have observed this on plenty of Nazi and American bios. A symptom of a larger obsession with militaria, and a Call of Duty mentality certainly. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 16:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Those kinds of insults and aspersions are not warranted, nor helpful here. - wolf 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that a simple lost without graphics is sufficient. Elsewise it looks like trying to recreate Zhukhov's parade uniform on a webpage.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the graphics are generally overkill. Necrothesp, I think it violates WP:UNDUE, which is an aspect of NPOV, because by definition an award is positive—and so having an entire section on awards is an entire section on "here are the good things this person did". I think it's a problem in all bios (actors, businesspeople, etc, etc), not just military bios, so please don't accuse me of having some covert agenda specific to military personnel. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: While I can see how the addition of these graphics are helpful to some users, I fail to see how they would be "unhelpful" for others. Further, if you're not interested in the awards a military person has received, then why not just simply scroll past that section? If anything, the additional graphics would make that all the much easier. If those awards were instead blended into the prose as someone has suggested, that would force a reader, such as yourself, to read of all the awards whether they like it or not. And since you have expressed a specific distaste such things, it would seem that deliberately making you wade all the way through that subject area of a given bio would be detrimental to you Wiki-user experience, no?. But on that note, I have to ask; of you're interested in a person, like Colin Powell, why wouldn't you have an interest in the awards they received while serving? Or at what points in time they advanced through the military hierarchy? And lastly, no... a section on their accomplishments is not an "undue" focus on the positive aspects of their career. Just as how a "controversies" section, if warranted, is not "undue" for for the same reasons, (but with opposite effect). This all seem to be much ado about nothing. (imho) - wolf 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In the major biography articles I have worked on, the local consensus has been to list the major, top awards the subject has been awarded, as opposed to “everything and the kitchen sink”. I believe that is a good rule of thumb to follow. Kierzek (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This becomes a matter of where to draw the line. In most cases the kitchen sink isn't really an option, but in a few it is possible. In the aforementioned article on Harry Crerar, the full list was available. I chose to retain the Canadian Forces Decoration another editor added because it grants post-nominal letters; but I omitted mention of other service medals like the 1939-45 Star, the 1935 Jubilee Medal, and the 1937 Coronation Medal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Audie Murphy is something of an exceptional case, since he is well known for having lots of medals, whereas other notable commanders and fighter aces are known more generally for their service, regardless of whether their bosses thought to give them shiny medals for it. The Kesselring et. al. pages get right to the crux of the problem, since those sections were probably removed because those men were Nazis, and some were convicted war criminals. Since we are not in a position to judge "good" and "bad" soldiers and who "deserved" their medals, we can't have it both ways (for the sake of NPOV). If we want to honour our hero Allied grandads, we'll also have to recognize the "bravery" of the Holocaust perps, rapists, pillagers, and Génocidaires. I think the display lists are usually francruft nonsense (in text mention is different) and we are best to avoid them in most cases. It might do us well to have a centralised discussion on awards for military bios. Right now at AfD we have some arguing that a Silver Star grants notability and others who believe that unit-level honors should be listed alongside individual awards on bios (Willie H. Fuller). -Indy beetle (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

One point I would like to add is that while I believe the 'ribbon rack' format serves a great benefit, beyond that I've seen instances where some users have added large images of individual medals within a quotebox that can take up the full width of the page, and which contains the full text of the citation that accompanied the medal. Other than perhaps the Medal of Honor, I have seen where these large individualized awards overwhelm the page. I believe these pages would benefit from a standardized layout, and near the bottom of the article we have an "Awards section" that has the basic ribbon rack layout and attached sources. This layout has been used for years on numerous US military bio's, as well as perhaps some UK and other commonwealth countries, (Aus, Can, Nz etc), former commonwealth countries, (eg: South Africa, etc) and perhaps some NATO countries. I know that for US milhist bio's, we can keep the awards section contained, but informative, and it seems to work well. (jmho) - wolf 03:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we should only mention in the text awards that are selectively awarded or grant postnominals, not campaign medals, commemorative medals, long service medals, etc, that are awarded to anyone who serves in a particular place, at a particular time or for a particular period. If someone is awarded the Silver Star or the Military Cross or the OBE then it should most definitely be recorded, as they are awarded for individual achievement or gallantry and are highly relevant to any bio. I'm neutral about ribbons being portrayed visually in a separate section. I can see why some would think they unbalance the article, particularly in a short article, but I can also see why people would be interested in them. I certainly don't think they are an attempt to make people look important or contravene NPOV. That, to me, is a ludicrous allegation. They are simply a fact of uniformed service life. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I see the purpose of an encyclopedia as to impart knowledge by textual means and to enable the understanding of that knowledge by suitable graphics. The medal racks do not illustrate the text but substitute for it and to the extent that many of the medals illustrated would not be deemed worthy of mention in the article. Therefore I feel they are decorative and should be removed Lyndaship (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

In answer to the OP, there is no policy or guideline really, just common practice, but even that varies considerably. Personally I find the ribbon farms distracting and WP:UNDUE and have removed them from articles I was working up to higher levels of assessment, but am fine with a section listing them all or mentioning them in the text, if they can be reliably cited. I do not think we should differentiate between "good guys" and "bad guys", because IMHO that would be a clear breach of the WP:NOTCENSORED policy, and removing material on that basis is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopaedia. I don't see how mentioning or listing the medals received by a "bad guy" like a war criminal, Nazi or murderer breaches WP:NPOV, which would be the only basis within the policy that material that might be considered objectionable or offensive might be removed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Battle of the Ruhr

Are there any aficionados of German night defences who might suggest sources for the section on German defences, which is rather skimpy. Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Defence of the Reich#Bibliography ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This recent Osprey book is likely to be useful. I haven't read it, but the author's excellent recent work on the Allied bombing of Italy provides good coverage of the Italian defences, so I assume that he's done the same for the German defences of the Ruhr. Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

list of victims of the Gambella massacre

I'm making an article for the 2003 Gambella massacre that killed 424 people and I keep finding references to a list of the name of the people who died yet I can't find this list anywhere. I've even found links to the list but all the websites have since been shut down so the websites just show up as "Not Found". I was wondering if anyone could potentially find this list.--Garmin21 (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

G’day Garmin21, have you tried the Wayback Machine/Internet Archive [21]? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You're not looking to create a list of all 424 people that died, for here on WP, are you? - wolf 03:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, don’t do that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Spanish frigate Pizzaro

I've got conflicting fates for the Spanish frigate Pizzaro. Was she wrecked at Bermuda in a hurricane on 28 August 1878 ("Loss of the Spanish Man of War Pizaro". The Cornishman. No. 11. Penzance. 26 September 1878. p. 6.), of did she founder in the Atlantic Ocean on 11 September ("foundering of a Spanish Frigate". The Times. No. 29365. London. 20 September 1878. col D, p. 3. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help))? Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"Foundering of a Spanish Frigate". Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette. No. 1473. Sunderland. 20 September 1878. p. 3. and "Foundering of a Spanish Frigate". York Herald. No. 6742. York. 21 September 1878. p. 6. both agree with the 11 September date, and that the crew was sent to Delaware. "United States". Leeds Mercury. No. 12624. Leeds. 25 September 1878. also reports that the crew was "housed at the Brooklyn naval yard" afterwards. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

per this: "Spanish frigate Pizarro left Bermuda September 7th, and encountered strong SE. wind with heavy sea, increasing to hurricane, which lasted until 10th, vessel abandoned at 4 a.m., of the 11th..." Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, both scenarios could be correct, of course. Driven ashore, later refloated and subsequently foundered. Mjroots (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This article provides a claim of the exact location in longitude and latitude of where the crew were rescued.[22] From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

A better description of the incident and its causes can be found here, but still no mention of a previous incident. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I've now pieced together the full story of her loss. Mjroots (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons deletion discussion

I've nominated a file used in a number of ACW articles on enwiki for deletion at Commons here. Thought I'd crosspost a link here, as it'll affect several articles. Hog Farm _Talk 05:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Charles Richardson parentage

This is very much a longshot, but I'm currently researching Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer) for an article on him I'm writing here. There's little recorded on his parentage but his biography (Armstrong, C. E. (1855). A Tar of the Last War. London: Longman, Brown, Green, & Longmans.) notes that his father died in the Battle of Trincomalee and was a naval officer. Later on in the biography it is noted that Richardson was related to Sir Francis Lindley Wood, and checking lists of officers again I find that Captain Charles Wood of HMS Worcester was killed at that battle. As of right now it's total speculation and original research that the two might be related, but I'm leaving this plea here in case anyone has any suggestions as to where I might be able to affirm or throw away my idea. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I've started updating his entry on Wikidata at Charles Richardson (Q108087874). I haven't traced any other family members yet. One point to note is that Wikidata allows references that may not be acceptable on Wikipedia; you may only be able to use the Wikidata information as a guide for other research rather than as a basis for article text. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I've tracked down three obituaries on the British Newspaper archives but I don't have access to the site to check the contents. There are apparently entries in the Yorkshire Gazette, 16 Nov 1850, p. 5; Newcastle Journal, 16 Nov 1850, p. 8; Norfolk Chronicle, 23 Nov 1850, p. 3. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The York Herald of 16 November 1850 has a good obituary, most of which was culled from Obryne's Naval Biography if that is any help. ("Death of Vice Admiral Sir Charles Richardson K.C.B.". York Herald. No. 4075. York. 16 November 1850. p. 2.) Nowt said about parentage. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be some connection. The University of York holds Richardson's papers in their Wood family archive (perhaps worth a polite email to their archivist?). Richardson was left £500 in the will of Elizabeth Wood (widow of Sir Francis Wood [who died 1795]) in 1798 (High Court of Chancery records page 79). Confusingly Wood's son was also Sir Francis Wood. Richardson was left money in the will of this second Sir Francis, in 1847 (Illustrated London News page 370) - Dumelow (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: and @Mjroots: thanks for the obituaries and wikidata work (I wouldn't have thought to do that!). I think I've now read around twenty-five obituaries of Richardson and it seems those that did make an effort to provide detail did so via O'Byrne, which while a very good source doesn't provide any information on his family at all! Very frustrating!

@Dumelow: Thanks for this. Tantalisingly also held in that archive is a letter described as "From Thomas Eagle to Francis Wood, 1st Bart., about an allowance payable to Mrs Richardson mother of Admiral Sir Charles Richardson, R.N.." As of now I'm leaning towards Richardson being an illegitimate son of the Wood family, but that's purely conjecture. I'll have a go contacting the archive and see what that brings, because I agree that whatever the connection was, it certainly existed! (as a side note, Richardson's biography paints his relationship with the second Sir Francis Wood as being very close, he even seems to have moved from Westmorland to Yorkshire to live closer to him! The book itself seems to have been written by a nephew of Wood, too.) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

uboat.net as a source on biographies and u-boat articles

I just came across this part of the discussian and found it to be biased and a failure to think of history, for it's own sake. Seee this re-post below and my coments after. I appreciate the notification; here are my thoughts:

Thank you for linking the RSN discussions. As mentioned above, there's currently no consensus at RSN as to uboat.net's reliability. It's a self-published / user generated site with no indications of fact checking. See for example: About and U-boat crew. RSN is the appropriate place to discuss the reliability of uboat.net. The OP would have been aware of that, as they have started the 2019 discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#uboat.net. The lists are undue in submariners' bios: First, they diminish the contributions of the relevant crews, as the commander does not single-handedly "attack" a ship. There's a crew behind him. Second, such lists contribute to the romantic, ahistorical notions of the commander "on a hunt", prowling the waters. This in a way aligns with the German war-time propaganda that made celebrities out of successful commanders. With this approach to bio articles, the commanders are presented as knights in shining armour jousting with merchant ships, as "submarine aces" and/or, even more exaltedly, as "Aces of the Deep". Please see deletion discussions where these notions are addressed: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Submarine_ace -- redirected to Ace (military) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 4#Category:Aces of the Deep -- deleted Hopefully, this shows that Wikipedia is moving away from such romanticism. If such lists were to be retained, the appropriate place for them would be in the submarine articles, as these were ship-on-ship engagements. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

AS a Career Combat Veteran and a History Teacher, Ret. I have three objections to this entire line of thought, or lack there of. First, each ship sunk, no matter how small has a detrimental effect on the loosing side. You might think a ship of 108 tonnes Burthen is not important, but if it's loaded with chocolate needed for survival bars in emergency rations, it has an effect out of all proportion to it's size. Every ship sunk counts. Second, The thought that the crew is important, other than the fact that they do his bidding is ludicrous! To say the least. Considering the technology of the time, a well trained crew could do each of their jobs sailing the boat, but the Capitan is the single indispensable member of the crew. It takes a few weeks to train a crew, but several years to train a captain and even then there is a huge disparity of how effective each one is! And Lastly, what is wrong with the romantic idea of a knight in shining armor, a hard steel tank, or fragile airplane to defend the helpless and protect society at large! Your view is one of ignorance of EVILE! There are bad people out there and some of them find their way into positions of power and use that power to harm less powerful people! We, society, desperately needs those Heroes to glorify that they might protect you. neoconshooter@live.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoconshooter (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I just came across these recent edits Hans Jenisch and Günther Heydemann. The edits were commented as "inappropriate trophy room & uboat.net is not a reliable source". On the other hand, Wikipedia has many German u-boat articles at GA-class level (German submarine U-41 (1939), German submarine U-40 (1938), German submarine U-104 (1940), just to list a few) listing the same type of information and making extensive use of uboat.net as a source. Additionally, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies states that "Where relevant, for flying aces or submarine captains, for example, it may be appropriate to include a table listing their victories, but depending on its size in comparison to the rest of the article, consideration should be given to collapsing it." Have the guidelines changed? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss uboat.net fairly recently and say that it was ok up to GA but not higher? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I've cited it in articles that have passed FACs. A search of Google Books shows that the site is very widely referenced in professionally published works, including books by leading historians. This includes a recent book by Richard J. Evans, the prominent expert on World War II and Cambridge history professor: [23]. Submarine expert Iain Ballantyne has some very strong praise for the site in a recent work as well: [24]. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

What are the consequences for the biographies above? Are the deletions legitimate or not? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The foundational problem here is that some editors (for reasons that are often obscure to me) dismiss sources we have discussed here and formed a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that they are reliable. Of course, editors that actually know these subjects (such as those familiar with a wide range of reliable naval sources) are likely to be more competent in assessing such things than editors who don't couldn't tell a bow from a stern and obscure motives. The only way to ensure this issue doesn't become a perennial one (which it pretty much already is), is to have a fulsome discussion at WP:RSN and get a good community consensus that can be pointed to in the future. I'd be happy to post at RSN and be involved in the discussion. Does anyone else have knowledge of naval historians using uboat.net as a source? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the deletions were justified on two terms. First, the deleted content was considered "inappropriate trophy room" although Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies explicitly states that victory lists for submariners can be included. And second, the deleted content was linked to uboat.net which was deemed unreliable. I would like clarity on both please? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the former as a reason for removing these kinds of tables. The source is reliable, but this does seem like unnecessary detail. It also puts an emphasis on the sub commanders' successes, when most also had failures. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Nick-D, but this stuff is the subject of exhaustive research and resulting books by notable submarine historians like Jürgen Rohwer, who was a professor of history at the University of Stuttgart: Axis Submarine Successes of World War Two: German, Italian, and Japanese Submarine Successes, 1939-1945 (1999) and Allied submarine attacks of World War Two: European Theatre of Operations 1939–1945 (1997) have even more detail than these embedded lists. He wasn't some fanboi, he was a serious historian who obviously thought this stuff mattered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about this during a walk around the block (yes, really), and the better option might be to list this information in the articles on the subs, as it was the crew who sank the ships not just the captain. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point, although my understanding of the captain's role in WWII and earlier subs is that they were completely central to attack success in terms of the way the sub was brought into firing position and the timing and nature of the attack. They could also be made a stand-alone list if considered too big. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess so but it seems a bit odd. I'd like a table of cock ups to go with these tables of victories if we want to attribute stuff to sub commanders only - they also often made complete hashes of attacks, especially the rookie German commanders in the later years of the war. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue with the content guide is that some (often the same) editors also dismiss our project guidelines as "local consensus", and point to the MOS on collapsing lists MOS:COLLAPSE which could be read as potentially contradicting the content guide in some circumstances. Perhaps we should add "... as long as this does not contravene MOS:COLLAPSE." to our guideline to clarify that we are not recommending ignoring the MOS? In the meantime, one of the lists could be re-inserted in an uncollapsed form, and an RfC started on the talk page of that article about whether such embedded lists are WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC and can be included in submarine captain bios. The RfC should be advertised on relevant wikiproject and policy talk pages to ensure wide community involvement. Then a community consensus might form about the inclusion of such embedded lists, which could then be applied to any other submarine captain bio articles, and referenced in our content guideline. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I re-added the deleted content in Günther Heydemann. In addition, I introduced Rohwer, Jürgen; Hümmelchen, Gerhard [in German] (1968). Chronik des Seekrieges 1939–45 [Chronicle of Naval Warfare 1939–45] (in German). Herrsching, Germany: Pawlak. ISBN 978-3-88199-009-7. as a source which confirms the data from uboat.net. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you follow that up with an RfC as I suggested. Happy to help draft one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

yes please MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Since no-one appears to have tried to discuss this with the editor in question, I've left a note on User:K.e.coffman's talkpage inviting them to take part in this discussion.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, Nigel and thanks. I wasn't aware of that. My recommendation was based on the fact that it was clearly a dispute between two editors and needed DR, and an RfC seemed the most appropriate means to achieve a community consensus on the inclusion (or not) of these embedded lists in articles on submarine captains. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

No dispute to date, I was raising a question on guidelines and recommendations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that it is a reliable source. Info presented there usually corresponds to info given by other RSs. Yes, let's get this brought up at WP:RSN and thrash it out. Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a RSN discussion isn't necessary. The reference I provided above where Richard J. Evans cites the website in a recent book is probably enough by itself to establish that this is a reliable source (e.g. this is a top tier academic historian who specialises in in the WW2 era attesting that the site is reliable), and there are heaps of other references to it in high quality works from a quick search in Google Books. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: the advantage of a RSN discussion is that it firmly establishes that Uboat.net is a RS at a Wikipedia-wide level, and takes the issue beyond the local consensus of this WP. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but it seems a waste of time. A few similar recent RfCs at RSN have gotten very negative receptions on those grounds (for instance, someone was starting RfCs on major Australian and NZ newspapers to put on record that they were clearly reliable despite this never being disputed). Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I must suspend my impartial Coordinator's hat here, on this topic. I've had two cents in the piggy bank on the real meat of this discussion for years now. The kill-tally tables are inappropriate, take up too much space visually and/or WP:SIZE-wise, and are outside the scope of this project. It is as if these U-boat captains and fighter aces were baseball players, rather than men employed to kill other human beings. We tell each other constantly in these times that there is a human behind the computer screen. I think we should remember that there are humans in every plane, boat, tank, truck, etc. counted and laid upon the altar of war-hero sword saints as piles of burnt scrap. We use terms like "highest-scoring ace"; but war is not a game, and warriors should not have scoreboards on their articles, full stop, no matter what flag or cause for which they killed, maimed, and destroyed. The reliability of uboat.net is beside the point. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 14:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of sources is very much to the point if it is being used as a justification for the removal of material, with explicit claims of being an unreliable source as has been done here.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out why it'd be acceptable to list all ships sunk by a submarine (or its captain), but not list every tank killed by a tanker or every soldier shot by another soldier, were that data available from a reliable source (thus ignoring whether uboat.net is WP:RS or not). Ignoring WP:SIZE, I believe the reason the tanker/infantryman examples would not be appropriate is that those events would not be notable. The question then becomes whether every sinking of every ship by every submariner is by default notable, and I cannot see why that would be. Obviously there are notable sinkings, as evidenced by the prose describing the sinking of Empress of Britain in the article Hans Jenisch. But why is the sinking of the 108 ton Sálvora notable enough to be included in the article? In my view, either a sinking is sufficiently notable to be included in the prose, or it shouldn't be included in the article. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of the difference is the readability of the article. Is it easier to give the name of a small ship of no notability, rather than to say "two 108 ton Spanish ships". What would the reader think if the second option was chosen? It is simpler to give the name of the ship. On the relevance of a table of ships sunk, the majority of U-boats sank a small number of ships (or, even, none at all). The easiest way of showing the difference is with a tabulated list. For many readers, a "total tonnage" figure is relatively meaningless. Yes, we should avoid using sports journalist terminology in reporting military successes, but differing levels of military effectiveness between units or individuals is a facet of military history. The problem to fix is the language, not what is being reported in an article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Part of the answer, at least for ships, is that a significant proportion of the ships sunk will be notable and will either have articles or be capable of sustaining articles that pass GNG etc once someone gets round to writing them.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I probably fall under the line of thinking that the tables can be a bit crufty, at least for sub commanders. If a bunch of small freighters were sunk by the sub, is the reader frankly going to care to see every single one of them listed in a table? Or is a summary sentence stating In addition, xxx also sunk three small merchant vessels and throw in the tonnage for those who really care. Yes, having an idea of how effective the sub was is a good thing, but a whole table detailing all of them, even the minor sinkings, in detail is probably WP:UNDUE. Hog Farm _Talk 16:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Much like pilot victory lists, I strongly prefer that they be collapsed to avoid overpowering the rest of the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree Sturm, but that really clashes with MOS:COLLAPSE. Perhaps moving the lists to the submarine articles is more appropriate? That doesn't solve the issue of the pilot victory lists, of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

For completeness, here are the links to previous discussions of uboat.net at RSN:

I can't say I find any of them very conclusive, although 2019 was getting close. The 2019 one had the widest interest and a range of views and argumentation, MisterBee1966, Mjroots, Dapi89 and Nick-D thought it was reliable, I thought it was ok to GAN but not above (Someguy1221 seemed to be on the same page as me), Guy was leaning unreliable, and ThoughtIdRetired and K.e.coffman thought it was not reliable (the latter at least for biographical info). Given what Nick has linked about reliably published naval authors using and praising it, I have changed my mind and think it is reliable for basic facts at any level (not opinion or analysis). Perhaps if any of those pinged (or anyone else) wants to chime in with their views, we could generate a useable consensus for the future? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. I think I agree with my 2019 views that this is clearly a RS, but also that it shouldn't be used in isolation as there are several other high quality RS that cover the topic and each of these RS often differ in what they say from one another! Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

So far, I found the information (bare facts) on uboat.net inline with the information published by Rohwer and Hümmelchen. However, I only did a few spot checks, by no means a conclusive analysis. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the logic of my 2019 opinion of not being an RS still holds good. If you take the view of "I've not found any errors" - how do you know? Because you've used other sources. Why not use those sources for the article? I don't doubt that uboat.net is full of good information, but its quality control mechanisms are not clear. The ready availability of an online source should not over-ride the ambition to use, for a historical subject, sources that meet WP:HISTRS. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the notification; here are my thoughts:

Thank you for linking the RSN discussions. As mentioned above, there's currently no consensus at RSN as to uboat.net's reliability. It's a self-published / user generated site with no indications of fact checking. See for example: About and U-boat crew. RSN is the appropriate place to discuss the reliability of uboat.net. The OP would have been aware of that, as they have started the 2019 discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271#uboat.net.
The lists are undue in submariners' bios:
- First, they diminish the contributions of the relevant crews, as the commander does not single-handedly "attack" a ship. There's a crew behind him.
- Second, such lists contribute to the romantic, ahistorical notions of the commander "on a hunt", prowling the waters. This in a way aligns with the German war-time propaganda that made celebrities out of successful commanders. With this approach to bio articles, the commanders are presented as knights in shining armour jousting with merchant ships, as "submarine aces" and/or, even more exaltedly, as "Aces of the Deep". Please see deletion discussions where these notions are addressed:
  - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Submarine_ace -- redirected to Ace (military)
  - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 4#Category:Aces of the Deep -- deleted

Hopefully, this shows that Wikipedia is moving away from such romanticism. If such lists were to be retained, the appropriate place for them would be in the submarine articles, as these were ship-on-ship engagements. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome. The limitations of RSN in coming to a consensus on this has been shown by the limited discussion over three threads and twelve years. It is not the be-all-and-end-all if it cannot provide guidance to editors. The nearest thing to a consensus is the most recent RSN discussion, which combined with this discussion (with only me changing position at this stage, and counting votes, which of course we don't do...) adds up to 5 for reliable, one reliable - up to a point, and three leaning unreliable or unreliable. Which in my view is a weak consensus that it is reliable, almost all of which comes from the RSN discussion. Let's see if anyone else has a view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

As you noted yourself, given that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, counting "votes" is indeed not meaningful. As far as I can determine, the arguments in favor seem to be "uboat.net is sometimes used by other reliable sources as a source" and "the content seems to be correct, when contrasted to reliable sources". The arguments against seem to lean on the self-published nature, the lack of citations to primary sources and the unclear quality control practices.

The problem with the argument here seems to be that the pro-side argument does not fully address the contra-side argument. Contra, effectively, argues that of the three factors affecting reliability (the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work), factors 2 and 3 are not indicative of reliability, while factor 1 is unclear. Pro, meanwhile, argues that the source is reliable w/r/t factor 1, as evidenced by references to it from other reliable sources, largely ignoring the two other factors. Contra holds the slightly more restricted position that while some of the content on the site is correct, as evidenced by other reliable sources, we should not derive from this the assumption that all content is correct given the lack of citations and unclear quality control practices. Notably, I don't think the pro-side has argued against this limited position.

Based on my reading, I would interpret the current consensus situation thus:

1. there is consensus that uboat.net is (effectively) a self-published source

2. there is consensus that content on uboat.net is not properly sourced, and it's quality control measures are unclear

3. there is consensus that at least some of the content of uboat.net is correct, as evidenced by reliable sources

4. there is a lack of consensus w/r/t whether all content on uboat.net is correct

To me, this seems like a weak consensus that uboat.net falls somewhere in the "lower half" of the reliability spectrum, and at minimum, should be used sparingly and carefully, with preference to other, more clearly reliable, sources.

As for my personal view, as a person who is not really personally interested in U-boats and is new to this whole discussion, I would argue that uboat.net is not suitably reliable to be the only source for a piece of information, but can provide support for information sourced to another reliable source .-Ljleppan (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

For the lists of ships sunk (or attacked), I would see that the ships were mentioned in the submarine articles; the commander's performance can be summarised on their article. On the subject of uboat.net, even if considered unreliable for top-level sourcing the authors do mention the sources they work from so anything they say is checkable and could be replaced with alternate sources if it comes to it. On the positive side, I would not remove out of hand anything that was cited to uboat.net GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm in a position to judge the outright reliability of this source (though I'd prefer deadtree), but another question we should discuss is if this essentially seeks to act as a universal database for all uboat captains, should it count as a source for notability purposes i.e., does having an entry on uboat count as significant coverage? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

If uboat.net IS reliable, I wouldn't say the coverage of ship commanders of any sort on it counts as significant, and even if it was, the article would need at least one other reliable source in any case, as WP:GNG says "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Clay Blair (for instance) provides a fair bit of coverage to lots of U-boat skippers in his huge pair of works on the U-boat campaign, but from memory this is limited to their activities as COs and little other biographic information is provided so it's not particularly useful for establishing notability per WP:BIO. We don't need to duplicate uboat.net, which is an excellent but more than slightly obsessive resource. More broadly, as this seems to be heading towards RSN, I'd be grateful if someone could ping me when the report is lodged. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

uboat.net is no more reliable than Wikipedia, both are essentially user aggregations of published sources, the former by a closed group of named editors and the latter an open group of essentially anonymous users. At least Wikipedia attempts to add citations to the text, whereas U-boat.net doesn't even bother to add cites. So that's a big fail. However they do provide a list sources they use, so we should use those sources directly, not U-boat.net. --Nug (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Am having second thoughts about this. It does seem that uboat.net is referenced by a lot of published sources[25]. --Nug (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Assuming uboat.net would be considered unreliable moving forward, what are the implications for all the GA-class articles heavily relying on uboat.net as a source? Please have a look at Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Warships and naval units in particular the section "Warships of Germany", it appears that most of the submarine related articles are almost exclusively built around uboat.net as a source. Will there be a grace period to transit the references to other sources? Will the content immediately be deleted? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm rather new to this whole thing, but I'd assume the right play would be to 1 ) remove the unreliable citations, 2) re-reference what can be, and 3) submit to WP:GAR to determine whether the resulting article should remain as GA-class. Presumably step two also involves deciding what to do about information that cannot be re-referenced, either removing or e.g. leaving uncited with CN. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I don't think uboat.net could be considered entirely unreliable that we need blow away all references to it, given that is is cited by many published sources [26]. Maybe add Template:Verify-inline where ever it is cited, since we do have a list sources that boat.net relies upon and these can be checked over time. --Nug (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, the use of uboat.net by a range of reliable sources, and comments about its reliability by some of those sources, is a strong argument that it is reliable. Sure, there are better sources, and we should always seek to use the best sources for information, but much of what is being cited to uboat.net is basic factual material. There is no analysis or opinion being used, no material that is likely to be challenged. Sources reliability also depends on what they are being used to support. ie WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Some editors treat reliability through a narrow lens as a bright line which is easily determined. It rarely is, unless it is an academic-level source, and even those need to be examined for bias etc. There are many popular history books and other sources of that ilk that are fine for what they provide, basic facts about a ship, unit or aircraft. Many of them express no opinions on complex issues and conduct limited analysis. Are they likely to closely and critically examine the role of the ship in a given battle, or the tactical handling of a unit or its involvement in war crimes, or examine the strengths and weaknesses of fighter tactics using a particular aircraft? Probably not, but if we aren't using these sources for that, and we limit their use to matters for which they are reliable, then there really is no problem here, as long as we seek to fill in the gaps and use sources for those aspects that are more complex and require higher quality sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems something big discussion going on. It seems not only about submariners , submarine itself as well right ?

Well , as for summary of raiding history, if uboat.net source is unreliable , what you folks gonna do instead ? Big deletion of summary of raiding history lists of all U-boats article and replace all the information with so call reliable sources ? Does any of you folks got a idea how big it is ? It's more than 1000+ of article to deal with.

What u-boats articles' problem right now are not the source , it is the article itself got no maintenance for a long time.

And now you folks discuss the old topic again ? Why don't any of you maintenance the long old article before do this one ?--Comrade John (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

If the list got deleted , delete the whole Infobox service record of uboats article as well since nobody cares. But after that , most of the uboats article will become a stub with same format of content.-- Comrade John (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Appropriateness of kill lists in submariner bios

Lists of ships sunk has has been deprecated in submariner bio articles, and is now reflected the Milhist content guideline. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 25 October 2021 (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.

The discussion above did not really address whether these lists are due in submariner bios, quite apart from the fact that the OP started the discussion here, rather than on the NPOV and/or RSN noticeboards. The comments that did address the issue include:

From Nick-D: ...the better option might be to list this information in the articles on the subs, as it was the crew who sank the ships not just the captain.
From Vami IV: The kill-tally tables are inappropriate, take up too much space visually and/or WP:SIZE-wise, and are outside the scope of this project.
From Hog Farm: Yes, having an idea of how effective the sub was is a good thing, but a whole table detailing all of them, even the minor sinkings, in detail is probably WP:UNDUE.
From myself: The lists are undue in submariners' bios: First, they diminish the contributions of the relevant crews, as the commander does not single-handedly "attack" a ship. There's a crew behind him. Second, such lists contribute to the romantic, ahistorical notions of the commander "on a hunt", prowling the waters. This in a way aligns with the German war-time propaganda that made celebrities out of successful commanders. With this approach to bio articles, the commanders are presented as knights in shining armour jousting with merchant ships, as "submarine aces" (article redirected) and/or, even more exaltedly, as "Aces of the Deep" (category deleted). Hopefully, this shows that Wikipedia is moving away from such romanticism. If such lists were to be retained, the appropriate place for them would be in the submarine articles, as these were ship-on-ship engagements.

I plant to restore my removals, based on such trophy rooms and kill lists being undue and inappropriate in submariner bios. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I repeat and stand by my remarks above. Kill-tally tables are massive, crufty altars to aggression and murder (He died killin' men, a most honorable sin!), and they should be abolished. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 19:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the only one familiar with that song! Hog Farm _Talk 19:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I also stand by my statement above - especially WP:UNDUE for bios as it puts an overemphasis on the role of the sub captain; should be summarized in prose (preferably at sub article) if significant. Prose > tables the vast majority of the time, especially in these cases as prose allows greater context. As an aside, we should also be careful with sourcing for these - mistaken/exaggerated reports were not uncommon. Hog Farm _Talk 20:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreeing with removal from sub captain articles. Sufficiently notable sinkings can be described in the prose of the sub articles, with the rest described in the aggregate. Someone(tm) should probably take a good look at the pilot kill lists too, given how massive some of them (e.g. here) are. -Ljleppan (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree on moving any list/information from submariner bios to the submarine articles themselves, but query the same for pilots because it's not like there's an equivalent article for every pilot's plane, as there usually is for sailors and submariners. I think there's a fine line between removing unsuitable hero worship and removing legitimate chronicles of warfare (although I don't know where that line is!) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that it's a little different with how to handle pilots vs submariners. With the submariner's its clearly ship-on-ship combat, but it's a little different for pilots. Again, I suspect that the best thing to do might be to summarize any significant incidents in prose, with a summary sentence for totals. Hog Farm _Talk 20:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with removal from submariners bios. The ship deserves the credit, not the individual who (merely) pulled the trigger Lyndaship (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No, this is not correct. In the submarines of the time, the captain manned the periscope, and only he knew what was going on. Everything then depended on his personal courage and skill in manoeuvring his boat. If he lacked courage, he could simply report that no target was sighted. If he lacked skill, no firing position would be acquired, None of the crew would be the wiser. (After a few war patrols though, he was likely to be relieved of command if he hadn't sunk anything.) The executive officer normally manned the computer and obtained a firing solution. But the captain was in complete control, and it was quite appropriate that he would be the one who got the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor. This was very different from a surface combatant where other members of the crew on the bridge, on the decks and in the combat information center have a view of what is occurring. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh come on, ever heard of team player? So if the executive officer got a bad firing solution the Captain should still get the credit? Did the Captain actually press the button to launch. Did the Engineer not keep the engines running. If the torpedomen failed to maintain the torpedo. If the catering department didn't provide the food. Each and every member of the crew contributed. The award of a gong was partly political (we need Heros) and was in recognition of the whole crews efforts Lyndaship (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Not to particularly to disagree with removal from submarine captain articles but note that through both the First and Second World War, most shipping was sunk on the surface - either by gun or torpedo, where there is much more opportunity for other members of the crew to be involved in tactical decisions.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

if removal is the consensus, shouldn't Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies be reworded? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, no one is making any edits, especially mass-removals of content from articles while the subject of that content is still under active discussion, right? Everybody here is waiting until the discussion concludes and there is a consensus to support the removals? And additionally, if it's determined that this content is to be removed from the captain bios, then these lists may instead be added to the articles of subs that did the sinking, yes? - wolf 05:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I would hope that editors keen to remove these lists would have enough respect for the efforts of the editors that have sourced and added these tables to leave their removal until a consensus is reached about them (the consensus is pretty clear, IMHO - see below) and yes, I think it would be appropriate to move the content to the relevant submarine article where it exists. Of course, a single officer may have commanded several subs, so the table from his article might need to be split across several submarine articles, and perhaps modified to include a column for the commander for each sinking. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

When rewriting the Content Guide on Biography, could someone update the advice on Collapsing content - WP:MOS/Accessibility position is that content may be collapsible but not start collapsed as a default. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this seems logical and is precisely the reason I brought up the pilots above. As far as I can tell, there is something of a consensus regarding the outcome ("not in captain articles"), but less so whether the operative reason is 1) "better in submarine article", which does not apply to pilots, 2) "WP:UNDUE/glorifying/unencyclopedic/WP:SIZE/something else", which would apply to pilots as well, or 3) some combination of both which makes the pilot question even trickier. Perhaps the solution is to just leave the pilots alone for now, pending a future discussion. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

One general point, we should make sure that any "rule" we introduce is not absolute, as there will be cases where discussion of an individual's claims in detail is appropriate and not undue because there has been in depth discussion and analysis of claims in reliable sources (I'm thinking in particular about people like Manfred von Richthofen where there has been a whole cottage industry in analysis of claims and whether they match up against actual losses).Nigel Ish (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about submarine captain articles. It seems to me that there is a consensus above to not include these tables in submarine captain articles, and that WP:MILCG should be amended to deprecate such tables on those articles. Given flying aces is a separate discussion and some of the above does not apply to them, as an interim solution (pending discussion of the treatment of flying aces in this respect and any tweaking of the content guideline for them) I suggest replacing:

Where relevant, for flying aces or submarine captains, for example, it may be appropriate to include a table listing their victories, but depending on its size in comparison to the rest of the article, consideration should be given to collapsing it.

with the following wording:

For flying aces only, it may be appropriate to include a table listing their victories, but depending on its size in comparison to the rest of the article, consideration should be given to making it collapsible, but this should not be set as the default.

Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. Hog Farm _Talk 13:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I also support this, as a first step. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 17:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support with the caveat that a fuller discussion needs be held on pilots later on. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support, as worded. Kierzek (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support, as worded. Lyndaship (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Support this proposal. Zawed (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Any last repêchages? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Pile-on support from me for the above suggestion. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd propose the tiniest bit of rephrasing (split into two sentences) and mentioning the relevant part of WP:DONTHIDE, as follows:

For flying aces only, it may be appropriate to include a table listing their victories. Depending on its size in comparison to the rest of the article, consideration should be given to making it collapsible, but this should not be set as the default. See WP:DONTHIDE: "If the information is important and the concern is article density or length, consider dividing the article into more sections, integrating unnecessarily list-formatted information into the article prose, or splitting the article. "

The WP:DONTHIDE quote can probably be nuked if it seems too long, but I think the link is important. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure. We're better off not quoting the MOS, as the wording can change. The link is unlikely to. For brevity:

For flying aces only, it may be appropriate to include a table listing their victories, but depending on its size in comparison to the rest of the article, consideration should be given to making it collapsible, but per MOS:DONTHIDE this should not be set as the default.

OK? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me! -Ljleppan (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Questions about Anatoly Levchenko(s)

I have a question concerning the pages Anatoly Levchenko and Anatoly Nikolayevich Levchenko, which I created today. Obviously, before I created the page on Anatoly Nikolayevich, this didn't matter, but shouldn't the name of the first page be changed to include his patronymic, as neither one of these men seems to be massively more notable than the other. In that case, the first page would be called Anatoly Semyonovich Levchenko.Sides-Daren? (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sides-Daren? The title of the article should follow the rules it WP:AT, specifically WP:COMMONNAME. If one of these guys is commonly referred to in reliable English-language sources with the patronymic and the other one isn't, then the titles are not necessarily incorrect. You can add a disambiguator such as Anatoly Levchenko (astronaut) if there is no primary topic for "Anatoly Levchenko". (t · c) buidhe 22:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

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) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Request history merge

An extremely irritating user, JMRAMOS0109 (see earlier complaints at User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 24#Ineffectual editing and User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 25#Regarding comments made in my talk page) has again caused some problems by moving High Command of Capital Hanoi to Hanoi Capital City Special High Command of the People's Army of Vietnam, meaning other users had to clean up after them. There are now two pages. Can somebody perform a history merge? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I am confused, looking at the Edit history it appears that JMRAMOS0109 made that move on 13 March 2016. Is that correct? And you are complaining about it now as if it was a new issue? As the page is completely unrerefenced do we even know for certain what the correct name is? Mztourist (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Expert eye required please

Do we have a medal expert who can help identify awards at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#What gongs is Lloyd George wearing? Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 Ataye clashes

For the article I made on this topic 2021 Ataye clashes- I am trying to re-research the clashes that happened earlier this year in order to add more info about specific incidents, people involved, and other info, and to be honest it's hard. there are two sides to this story the one of the "Amhara genocide"^[1] and the one of the "Oromo genocide"^[2]. The big problem is these two parties are really the only ones that have done any actually extensive research into what happened, Obviously, both want to paint their side as innocent and the other side as the aggressors. How should I handle this dilemma? --Garmin21 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What do the reliable independent sources say? If there are no reliable independent sources, we can't have an article on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I already made an article on this topic using reliable sources, but the reliable sources don't go over info on specific attacks during the clashes, villages razed, or people involved. You can see the sources I used in the article I made, most are just news articles, or conflict analysts mentioning it in passing references for the wider war in Ethiopia. In other words no in-depth analysis besides the ones made by the Oromo and Amhara groups.--Garmin21 (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

References

ACR reviewers needed

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/46th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) lacks just an image review; it's one of the older entries at WP:MILHIST/ACR.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/The Holocaust in Greece could also use a single general content review. Hog Farm _Talk 15:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.oryxspioenkop.com/

[Jefford2001p53-2] Jefford 2001, p. 53.

[3] Halley, James J. (1988). The squadrons of the Royal Air Force & Commonwealth 1918-1988. Tonbridge: Air-Britain. pp. 50, 168, 219. ISBN 0-85130-164-9.

[4] Burman, Sandra (1981). Chiefdom Politics and Alien Law: Basutoland under Cape Rule 1871-1884. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-349-04639-3.

[5] ttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1HDJhSxadE1wjCluaXb_4i_6QMbRiyDAr/view

[6] ttps://tumsahaqaoromoo.com/ajop-press-release-ethnic-cleansing-against-oromo-people-in-wollo-zone-of-amhara-region-in-ethiopia/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]