Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 130

Archive 125

←

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

→

Archive 135

Some Myths of World War II - Gerhard L Weinberg - The Italian Myth

If you don't believe me, will you believe one of the most recognized authorities on the second world war - Gerhard Weinberg?

Nevertheless, there is far too much denigration of the performance of Italy’s forces during the conflict. It was the Germans who insisted on the substitution of their enigma encoding machines that the British were reading for Italian ciphers that had not been cracked.14 As James Sadkovich has shown, the performance of the Italian navy and army was not as poor as much of the contemporary joking and subsequent writings suggest. Missing from most of the literature is the participation of Italian army units in the fighting on the Eastern Front, and the extent to which the heavy casualties those units suffered contributed to the rapid evaporation of support for the fascist system among the Italian public. (Some Myths of World War II, Journal of Military History, 2011)

This means that much of the literature that has needlessly and maliciously maligned the Italian war effort can be safely discarded and thrown in the trash. What we need is a new perspective, a new approach. Wikipedia has to be more sensitive and inclusive to a new crop of more recent authors and historians who are reevaluating the Italian performance. It is no longer enough to say: Well, that's what the majority of writers have written. In this case, the majority of writers in the past were either wrong, in error or biased against the Italian war effort or did not have the complete picture. Certain editors of Wikipedia are intent only on propagating the old stereotyped myths about the Italians. These editors will not or cannot change their views because they themselves have swallowed the half-truths, propaganda and false information, so I appeal to a younger set of editors to actually read and start quoting more recent books and articles, so that the injustices of the past can be rectified regarding the Italian participation in the war.

As wiki editors, we need to do more to redress the balance. While there has been an over-reliance on authors who have written biased and derogatory nonsense of the Italian war effort, there are also too many wiki-editors who have taken it upon themselves to present the Italians in a bad light due to misplaced nationalism, and even, I dare say it, a certain loathing for that country.AnnalesSchool (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What popular support for fascism? Keith-264 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

a link to the article in question. A few thoughts. I note that Weinberg references Sadkovich works written in 1989 and 1994 which suggests other works since may be more 'balanced'. That only the Italian army and navy are mentioned as poorly portrayed; does this mean that the Italian air force is accurately depicted in works? Importantly the words used to describe the issue are "most" and "most of " referring to the literature. To dogmatically throw out all references of a certain age would be to hurl out what little baby there along with the rest of the contents of a large bathtub. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Who knows how much is "much". It's always been a "much" ambiguous word. Let each and every wiki editor follow his or her own conscience. But there is a problem with the portrayal of the Italians. If someone as eminent an historian like Gerhard Weinberg saw fit to mention it in his speech and article, then there's definitely fire with the smoke.AnnalesSchool (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

At least let us turn this into an immediately productive dialogue. Please can you isolate and provide examples of any existing "Anti Italian" bias" presently existing in any WP articles. At least we can address them in a rational manner based on the sources that support them. Just a word. As far back as the early 70s, when I used to subscribe to an excellent magazine of short military themed essays called War Monthly, (costing a crippling 70p, a big investment to a 13 year old) I recall the article on the Battle of Keren was extremely generous to the Italian defence, and quite rightly. I have never come across any gross prejudice, apart from higher level command incompetence, which may be justifiable. Irondome (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Irondome, you wanted to see evidence of the bias and bad writing in WP articles concerning Italy and the Italians, here's one I recently tagged: take a look at this "beauty" from the Greco-Italian War article:

The politically degenerate framework, as in the parallel case of Nazi Germany, had in the meantime remunerated subservience, servility, servile quality and sycophancy. Past that, all types of political association had been diminished to close to a veneer: delegate bodies exclusively in outward appearance, yet in actuality close to vehicles of promulgation and recognition of the pioneer. The despot had been told, over and again, that he was trustworthy; and he accepted the blandishments. According to Kershaw, when things started unravelling in Italy's war effort, the Italian political elites did not accept their share of the responsibility for the failures, although they were eager to take credit for the successes, when things were going well. Kershaw concludes that the stupidity of Mussolini's choice reflected the despot's extreme individual inadequacies. At the same time it was additionally the idiocy of a political framework.

To his credit, Dr K deleted this crap yesterday. This is exactly what I am talking about. However, many other anti-Italian passages are not so obvious as the above. While they are careful to quote the right authors, use the "right" tone, they use weasel words, cherry-picking, adding negative connotations and ambiguous wording, selective writing and a certain "twist" that while, on the surface, appear legitimate, but when you dig deeper, have changed the original intent or meaning of the author. In the coming weeks, I will single out such passages and paste them here for others to see and judge.AnnalesSchool (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read Sadkovich and he tends to exaggerate Italian prowness just as much as other authors tend to denigrate them, so you really need to be careful to steer a course between the two extremes. Many English-language accounts don't understand how the crappy style and quality of leadership in the Italian Army undermined the overall effectiveness of their forces and often ignore the good performances that properly motivated and led Italian troops could have. These tended to be concentrated in the more "elite" branches like the Bersaglieri, Carabineri, armour, airborne and artillery. Line Italian infantry units were often best characterized as the unwilling led by the incompetent so it was no wonder that they often collapsed quickly in the face of British and Commonwealth attacks. So, like Irondome said, identify specific problems in articles and we're happy see if there are problems that need to be fixed to satisfy NPOV.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

And I would be damn careful about accusing editors of systemic bias against the Italians lest that be turned against you in the opposite sense. You've already been embroiled in some controversies in the past that didn't turn out particularly well for you, so I'd suggest moderating your tone and discussing issues here or on article talk pages before doing any serious editing reflecting your views on the topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just been reading some of the assertions you make on your talk page. In particular your gross ignorance of the Counterattack at Arras, the Siege of Calais (1940) the intensive fighting around the Dunkirk perimeter and the overall conduct of the B.E.F rearguard, the pitiful outcome of the Italian invasion of France, resulting in a clear French victory, despite the French army's desperate plight and the demands of other fronts, and your apparent animus towards Greek contributions cause me concern. Again, I would request that you provide specific "issues" in articles in your apparent POV that WP colleagues are biased towards Italian contributions in WW2. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Irondome, I think you might have the wrong guy here. I've never made any contributions to the Counterattack at Arras or Siege of Calais unless someone had got into my account and pretended to be me! As for the Italian invasion of France in 1940, I feel that overall, my contributions there have actually improved the article tremendously. I took the position that contrary to how some authors have decided to view it, the Italian campaign cannot be judged too harshly if the Italian army only had 3 or at most, 4 days of fighting in very difficult terrain before the armistice. I thought that the way the article was originally written was too censorious and critical of the Italian invasion of France. Again, Anglo authors especially appear very good at bringing up all the defects and negatives of the campaign, when more could have been done to highlight some of the positive gains as well, such as the taking of Menton, and over-coming several French fortifications and progress through mountain passes (and all in just a few days of fighting with bridges destroyed and roads mined).

As for your assertion that I hold a certain "animus" against Greek contributions, far from it! I admire the Greeks for the strong resistance against the Italian invading army. At the time, most people and leaders didn't give Greece much of a chance against the Italians, for they were truly the underdog. Due to a gross underestimation of the Greek fighting spirit, the Italians got a big surprise and had to retreat and regroup in Albania. That's fine. But where I draw the line is where our Greek friends will cherry-pick quotes to make the Italians look worse than they really were. I still maintain, and so do several more recent historians, that while the Italians may have failed to dislodge the Greeks in several offensives, they did not lose the war. Ultimately they emerged victorious, though it was a qualified victory, one with reservations. One could also say that the Greeks, as their general Papagos, admitted - simply couldn't "break the Italians" - meaning, they simply could not defeat them, try as they might.

As the eminent historian Gerhard Weinberg in frustration declared, there has been far too much denigration of the Italian military in WW2, criticism that is unwarranted and unfair. It does appear to me with glaring clarity that Italian failures are highlighted while Italian successes are either ignored or downplayed in many of the Wiki articles. There are authors out there who maintain that the quality of Italian leadership was on par with other armies in WW2; that the quality of Italian troops, Navy and Air force, were on par on even better than other armies in WW2. What is mistaken for incompetence or failure or negligence was often a lack of resources and materials to do the job as effectively as for example, the Americans or Germans could do with their abundance of war material. Italy simply lacked the resources to conduct a war that lasted so long. It could, at best, conduct a 6 month war - how it managed to stay in the fight for 3 and a half years, is something a PhD history student should do a thesis on as we would all like to know the answers to that question.

Sturvogel wrote that - Line Italian infantry units were often best characterized as the unwilling led by the incompetent so it was no wonder that they often collapsed quickly in the face of British and Commonwealth attacks.

This is precisely the sort of attitude and writing that I am trying to correct. If Sturvogel actually believes this type of fallacy, then it isn't hard to see that when he writes about the Italian army, this attitude or what I call, repeating a mantra or blind ideology, will be reflected in his writing. Who maintained this? A dozen or so Anglo or American or German armchair historians? Ask yourself the questions: Were they unwilling? Did they often collapse quickly?" Because so and so said so? If we already know (as Gerhard Weinberg laments) that much war historiography about the Italians is anti-Italian and needlessly derogatory, then we have to take such statements with a large grain of skepticism. I read somewhere that one British pilot in Malta was so fed up with newspaper reporters writing back home such misinformation as: the sight of one spitfire was enough to scare off a squadron of Italian planes, that he punched the reporter in the face. To that British pilot, the Italians were not a pushover at all.

AnnalesSchool (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

In every theatre--Ethiopia, Russia, Balkans, North Africa, or Italy itself it was one disaster after another. Were there some big wins???? Blame it on Mussolini? The army never appreciated how poorly equipped, & trained & led it was--that was a failure of the colonels and generals who told Mussolini that all was going well. I think they totally misread their success in Spain. I am of Italian descent myself and my cousins who fought in the Italian army I recall saying that the Italian war effort was ludicrous. (A couple of my cousins were captured in Tunisia and said POW camp was much better than the Italian army... tho the cooks were not as good). Rjensen (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, just about every soldier who ever fought, has thought that his commanders and superiors were incompetent, that the leadership didn't know what they were doing, and that they weren't given enough weaponry and materials to do the job properly. With all due respect to your cousins, they could only see the war from a micro point of view. Do you think that a German soldier retreating before the Russians day after day all across the Ukraine, Latvia or Poland, didn't share the same sentiments as your cousins and have doubts about it all and start to view the war as ludicrous? The Italians did have their victories on a small scale, but when Germany was sinking, so too would all its axis partners. The Hungarians, the Bulgarians, Romanians, half the population of the Ukraine, and the Baltic States, as well as Slovakia and half of Europe, including Italy, all pinned their hopes on the Germans. Only Spain and a couple of others, wisely refrained from taking sides. But when it became obvious that the Germans couldn't win, well .... that's another story!AnnalesSchool (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

[1] a not-so-tongue-in-cheek list of Italian victories. Keith-264 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

[2] a not-so-tongue-in-cheek list of Italian victories. Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

well no...This is the sort of listing that fooled Mussolini into thinking his army was doing so well. The Italians lost all the campaigns that were mentioned. to do impartial history you need to get the list of defeats and compare the two lists. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? are you an expert? How do you know? Then can I suggest you go on the Axis History Forum and explain your reasons to carlodinechi succinctly and accurately. But be warned: he doesn't tolerate fools lightly.

You wrote: to do impartial history you need to get the list of defeats and compare the two lists.

Can I suggest you get to writing that list of defeats and post them on the forum. And while you're at it, a list of Allied defeats as well. It should be fun comparing them. The nation who has the biggest list of victories and the shortest list of defeats wins the prize! A day with David Irwing on one of his Hitler Bunker tours!!!

Your idea of comparing lists smacks of a high school approach to history Rjensen.AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You read the thread that quick? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A blog post does not constitute a WP:RS I'm afraid. In common with others on the thread, I really advise Annales to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you can add to articles with RS-supported text, do it - but that's the best that can be hoped for. And for god's sake, calm down! —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't imply that it did....Keith-264 (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try! AnnalesSchool (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:AnnalesSchool, thanks for the reply. I was reading your talkpage, which is often a good barometer for the activity and priorities of an ed, a sort of snapshot. I was just a bit suprised by your denigration of the performance of the BEF in 1940. That was the reason for the links. They did ok actually. Please read the links to the actions I provided. Comparing them unfavourably is falling into the same trap as denigrating Italian performance, a trap we are all (hopefully) trying to avoid. As I have stated, the battle of Keren drew the highest praise from Gurkha forces who faced the Italian garrison. I have a quote, that "they were the bravest they had ever encountered". I will dig out the source. Also, the daring and highly competent attack on Alexandria which crippled the heavy units of the Med fleet for some months, the excellent performance of Italian pilots, especially when the new aircraft such as the Macchi C.202 began to come on line, the excellent performance of the Italian armoured contingent at the Battle of the Kasserine pass, and the airborne forces in Tunis, and many other actions, including on the Eastern front I in no way would deny this. In fact Italian performance seemed to improve as new equipment began to come on stream. A fascinating what if, would be, "what would have been Italian military performance if Mussolini would have sided with the Allies?". I really think the political aspect of an uneasy alliance with a German regime that was genuinely unpopular amongst the Italian population is being neglected here. And poor senior leadership combined with the utterly unrealistic demands that Mussolini made on "his" country. Again, I am happy to help in redressing an glaring imbalances in articles. As I have said, are you working on any, and can you flag up any particularly glaring examples of bias. Cheers Irondome (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Irondome, again you have misjudged me. I didn't write it - it was someone called --58.178.80.30 (talk) who left it on my Talk Page. Did you see above the recent example of a bad piece of anti-Italian writing I tagged. Well I will copy and paste it now for you below:

Irondome, you wanted to see evidence of the bias and bad writing in WP articles concerning Italy and the Italians, here's one I recently tagged: take a look at this "beauty" from the Greco-Italian War article:

The politically degenerate framework, as in the parallel case of Nazi Germany, had in the meantime remunerated subservience, servility, servile quality and sycophancy. Past that, all types of political association had been diminished to close to a veneer: delegate bodies exclusively in outward appearance, yet in actuality close to vehicles of promulgation and recognition of the pioneer. The despot had been told, over and again, that he was trustworthy; and he accepted the blandishments. According to Kershaw, when things started unravelling in Italy's war effort, the Italian political elites did not accept their share of the responsibility for the failures, although they were eager to take credit for the successes, when things were going well. Kershaw concludes that the stupidity of Mussolini's choice reflected the despot's extreme individual inadequacies. At the same time it was additionally the idiocy of a political framework.

To his credit, Dr K deleted this crap yesterday. This is exactly what I am talking about. However, many other anti-Italian passages are not so obvious as the above. While they are careful to quote the right authors, use the "right" tone, they use weasel words, cherry-picking, adding negative connotations and ambiguous wording, selective writing and a certain "twist" that while, on the surface, appear legitimate, but when you dig deeper, have changed the original intent or meaning of the author. In the coming weeks, I will single out such passages and paste them here for others to see and judge.AnnalesSchool (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Like it or not, the Italian performance in Operation Compass up until Beda Fomm amply supports my statement. Against competently led and supported troops the British would not have been able to prevail. What many people fail to realize that the performance of elements, but not all, of the Army considerably improved over the next several years.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

References

I agree with you Sturmvogel. The Italians had a severe wake-up call with Operation Compass. It was a disaster that rivaled the many disasters that befell the Russians in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa. However, like the Russians, the Italians learnt the hard way from their mistakes. It was sink or swim time. And like the Russians, they learnt lessons and improved their performance. Of course, better tanks and more trucks did help too.AnnalesSchool (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"In the coming weeks, I will single out such passages and paste them here for others to see and judge." Do keep in mind that the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Accordingly, then, if the information is cited to a reliable source, then the burden of proof for inclusion will have been met. If that does turn out to be the case, then the best we can do is ad a valid, equally well cited counter point in the article to ensure NPOV compliance. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

How many times to we need to rehash this tiresome POV pushing? I agree that this is a classic case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it and the associated POV-pushing editing has reached a point where a topic ban (or indefinite-duration block) would be well and truly justified. This discussion, for instance, appears to be a continuation of the nonsense at Talk:Military history of Greece during World War II#The Italian attack on Greece wasn't a failure which started with AnnalesSchool once again claiming that the Italian invasion of Greece was somehow a great success, with the Germans merely providing "timely ... assistance". We've been here before, it was pointed out that this flies in the face of history, but yet AnnalesSchool keeps pushing this POV. Abusive stuff like this is entirely unacceptable, but is also standard for AnnalesSchool. Enough is enough. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr K, it is not POV pushing. I never said that the Greco-Italian war was a great success story for the Italians - I do believe that it wasn't the great "failure" that editors (who often seem to have Greek non-de-plumes strangely enough) that is being portrayed and pushed down our throats. Now, if an eminent historian like Gerhard Weinberg believes there has been far too much denigration of the Italian war effort, then perhaps we as editors should listen and not continue to bury our heads in the sand. If you don't believe me, will you believe and listen to him, and others like Sadkovich and Stockings and O'Hara and others. I simply want to redress the imbalance. If that is POV pushing, then I plead guilty! But I am not POV pushing. Time and time again I try to introduce authors who are saying: well hang on a minute, the Italians were not as bad as that - and nearly every time my edits have been reverted for all sorts of reasons, or often, no reason at all. Recently my edits have been reverted by Alexikou and Constantine (or Cpslikas as he seems to be an editor with two names or accounts). Time and time again, when I try to make the language more neutral, more academic and less derogatory towards the Italians, my edits are reverted. Time and time again when I tag sentences as lacking in citation, vague, ambiguous or peacocking, etc, these edits get reverted too. When I try to discuss things on the Talk page, no compromise is reached, or I am simply ignored. It seems as if a clique of editors simply don't want these sacro-sanct articles changed, even to a word! They appear to think they own the articles, when it is clear they have no proprietary rights to them at all.AnnalesSchool (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I mean - AnnalesSchool

                                     ********************

Another pro-Italian attempt[edit source] The specific edit 1 is the epitomy of pov, "the Greeks were so hard pressed to hold the line against this latest Italian onslaught that General Pagagos "decided not to launch any further large-scale operations in Albania without Yugoslav assistance.". Not to mention that its completely out of the context of the primavera offensive, which, by the way, was another clear Greek victory. ("in the end the Tepelene offensive was succesfuully repulsed by the Greeks").Alexikoua (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

For instance the claim that the Greek side was "running low on reserves of men and war material." is a result of the fact that "by early March German intentions have became increasingly apparent. The danger of the German thrust... was serious ". I'm afraid that the editor who's is eager to add about the Greek weakness intentionally (and systematically) ignores the German threat in the Balkan theatre of operations in order to overemphasize the supposed Italian military supremacy. Thus, I won't object to present the full picture on each paragraph.Alexikoua (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled why you have reverted the above Alexikoua. The reliability is not an issue as they are quotes taken from Craig Stockings and Hancock's "Swastika over the Acropolis". So how can it possibly be a POV issue?? It adds to the article, doesn't subtract from it, and is perfectly relevant because it reveals the state of the Greek Army on the Albanian front.

The section deals with the Tepelene offensive that commenced on the 10th March. Is there another Offensive I don't know about? The Telepene offensive failed to dislodge the Greeks, but one can hardly call it a "victory" for the Greeks, if by "victory" you mean that the boxer getting the heavy blows from his opponent is "still standing"?

I really don't understand what your objections are Alexikoua. Can you please explain them more clearly and perhaps we can reach a consensus of sorts? Do you want me to include something about the German threat in the rear?

You can't just revert edits without a good reason Alexkiou. We can reach a compromise if you have a valid point.AnnalesSchool (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

THE TWO REFERENCES IN QUESTION

Stockings and Hancock[edit source] According to Stockings and Hancock, by the first week of March, "the General Greek staff were facing a number of serious problems." Not only was the conflict intensifying with the Italians, but they were running low on reserves of men and war material. The Italians presented what they called, an "existential threat" that continued to pin down the bulk of the Greek Army[1]

However, the Greeks were so hard pressed to hold the line against this latest Italian onslaught that General Pagagos "decided not to launch any further large-scale operations in Albania without Yugoslav assistance."[2]

What exactly is wrong with the above? Can you explain your objections more clearly Alexikoua and propose some sort of solution?AnnalesSchool (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

                                            *************

The above, taken from the Talk Page of the Greco-Italian War article, is a good example of the continual obfuscation I experience when trying to add more balance and deeper insight to the articles dealing with Italy. AnnalesSchool (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• You seem to be involved in an ongoing cold war with editors here over the Italian contributions to the Second World War. My opinions on the matter aside, your cold war is heating up, enough so that its officially reached the point of administrative intervention. As a result of a lack of consensus concerning what should go into the articles and whether the source for your information is accurate and reliable, I've locked down the two pages on which you and the others have had your public disagreement in hopes that you will talk first and then edit when all sides are in agreement as to what information should be added and how it should be phrased. In the event that this fails to get you and the others to work together the next step will be to start blocking editors, which I am more than willing to do if it turns out that you and others can not play nice. Consider this an official notice to work for consensus, and do try and keep an open mind. The best solution is not your solution, its the solution that leaves no one happy but everyone content. You have been cautioned. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm ok with that TomStar81. I am more than happy to be reasonable, but when I in good faith, quote and paraphrase reliable authors who are eminent academics and who may have a different view to the prevailing one, AND MY EDITS ARE REVERTED FOR SPURIOUS REASONS (OR NO REASON GIVEN) then I will certainly come back to this board and to you TomStar81 and others, and I will demand fairness and justice. Is that fair? AnnalesSchool (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"I feel that overall, my contributions there have actually improved the article tremendously."

I would just like to single this out for comment. Annales' contribution to the article on the Battle of France has been practically zero. He inserted his own opinion into the article, which was removed and replaced by countless sources - including Weinberg - that contradicted his opinion. The result? "Boy, EnigmaMcmxc, you really have it in for the Italians, don't you? Look, why not give the "eyeties" a bit of a rest and flog the Hungarians, or even better, the Bulgarians! They were members of the Axis too. So how about it? Can you give those poor dago bastards a bit of a break? Please."

Nothing he did survives in the article, and his talkpage comments - which are countless, and are mostly accusations - had no influence on how the article has turned out. So talk yourself up, the article was improved by two editors using what the sources have said on the subject - not you - thank you very much.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I can endorse what User:EnigmaMcmxc says about "Annales". It is hilarious that "Annales" takes his username from the most sophisticated & advanced school of historians in France, the famous Annales School. Rjensen (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a rather harsh criticism. The fact is that the article (Italian invasion of France) was in pretty poor shape when I first came across it several months ago Enigma. I suggested major improvements and offered constructive criticism, some of which was take on board. I insisted on including the terms of the armistice and the benefits the Italians had received from it, which were in themselves quite significant. The Italians had a definite "win" in the armistice terms, so the (3 day) war was not a failure for them, but rather, a modest success. Moreover, I convinced the editors of the article to include more detail and to acknowledge that the Italians had actually made military gains, the taking of some French forts, and several advances and tactical successes, which they were at first reluctant to do until I threatened to get involved in re-editing the article myself if they refused. I challenged the editors to improve the article, reveal the strategic- tactical plans and war aims of the Italians generals, pointing out several inconsistencies, and to their credit, they did. However, the article is still in my opinion, far to critical of the Italians, highlighting their setbacks while understating or ignoring their successes.

Moreover, Gerhard Weinberg, who recently lamented the fact that there is "far too much" denigration of the Italian war effort in 2012, actually regretted his earlier disparaging remarks. You see, like many historians, he relied to easily on the earlier works of other historians, assuming them to have their facts right. But to his credit, Weinberg later admitted that he fell into the trap of many of his predecessors of jumping onto the "Italian bashing" bandwagon. Sadkovich and others, convinced him that his earlier views of the Italian military and leadership, were not totally correct. Unfortunately there are still many so-called "writers" of military history (and sadly it seems, wiki editors), who persist in this grand fallacy and stereotyping. But slowly, more and more military historians in academia, are now doing their homework and research thoroughly, and are coming to the same conclusions as Weinberg and Sadkovich, like Dr Craig Stockings for one.AnnalesSchool (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please! The sole reason I started editing the article was to remove your ahistorical take on what happened. Your "feedback" has been anything other than "constructive". If your feedback had been accepted the article would read about the strategic victory the Italians gained in three days without any artillery support and having broke through the Alpine Line at Menton all the while not conducting an actual invasion (all unsupported claims you have made on the talkapge, which are all incorrect).

Your issue isn't with "Anglos" who have it in for the Italians, or even anti-Italianism, your issue is you do not like the truth. If Ciano says something you like, its useful (per a previous discussion on this page), if he says something you don't like it is because it is an unreliable source that was edited post-war by British intelligence. The inclusion of Weinberg (a quote would be nice to show that he changed his opinion or anyaslis on the invasion of France), among other creditble historians, was met with a hoast of abuse on the talkapge in regards to my "anti-Italism" as well as the historians. Even Italians are not safe, as the torrent of abuse you have shown Sica on the talkapge and in your extremely humorous commandosupremo article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@AnnalesSchool until I threatened to get involved in re-editing the article myself if they refused says enough for me. Hardly civil, I think. Hamish59 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Enigma, the fact that Weinberg in the 2011 George C. Marshall Lecture in Military History and then

published an article in the Journal of Military History, stating publicly that

"there is far too much denigration of the performance of Italy’s forces during the conflict. It was the Germans who insisted on the substitution of their enigma encoding machines that the British were reading for Italian ciphers that had not been cracked. As James Sadkovich has shown, the performance of the Italian navy and army was not as poor as much of the contemporary joking and subsequent writings suggest. Missing from most of the literature is the participation of Italian army units in the fighting on the Eastern Front, and the extent to which the heavy casualties those units suffered contributed to the rapid evaporation of support for the fascist system among the Italian public"

then we as wiki war history editors should actually stand up and listen.

The Italian invasion of France article has improved a lot, due to my urging and pointing out its many defects. I challenged you to do a better, more comprehensive job, and by and large, you did. But I still think that your "analysis" of the many defects and faults of the invading Italian army, is over-kill, while at the same time, the successes of the campaign are only lightly touched upon or given curt attention. I think you have taken Sica and others like him on board too much. ie. How about their socks? Were they the right length or thickness?

However, I did like that final assessment by General Emilio Faldella:

"At the front, near the border, the mission of the French forts was to delay the Italian army from reaching the line of defense, made up of steel and concrete fortifications. . . Our infantry had to advance in the open against well-protected troops through a field under French artillery fire. . . And all this was to happen in three to four days. In these conditions, greater Italian manpower has no advantage. . . It would be a mistake to say that a battle was fought in the western Alps; what took place were only preliminary actions, technically called 'making contact'. It is not possible to speak in terms of victory or defeat. . .[136]"

because it supports my contention that while the Italian attack on France was not a glaring victory, neither was it a failed invasion or defeat. However, the Italians did make political and strategic capital out of it, with some nice armistice concessions from the French, so from that point of view, it hardly "failed".AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your "input" did not influence my editing in the slightest, other than to revert your repeated vandalism. Stop kidding yourself that your argumentative attitude and slander on the talkpage improved the article. What the sources stated is what improved the article. Your continued comments on Faldella is further evidence of your bias attitude displayed all over the wiki: a regimental commander, one of an estimated 50 or so, should outweigh the overwhelming consensus of historians because "it supports [your] contention". As for Weinberg, he did not strike or reject his own previous comments. We should not "stand up" and put words into his own mouth.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I see a lot of words being flung around (some of them repeats of earlier), but not much focus on processes as to how we can improve the matters, eg to see if there are other RSs that give counter-opinion, or which specifically revise earlier sources. And if we are to move from Weinberg's "far too much denigration" of Italian performance to just the right amount of denigration, then the specifics of the work surely needs to be handled on the talk pages of the affected articles rather then here. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we are beyond that stage Graeme. I am just seeing walls of text, which really repeat only two or three basic points really. We also have had some of the other editors involved commenting here. There have been at least three requests for lists of contrasting R/S that we can compare. No TLDR walls of text but just a short list of works with opposing views. We have nothing to work with at this point. I fear this is a request to re-write articles based on? What? I would suggest AS comes back with new sources, a more minimalist approach in argumentation, and a more open mind to what others may think. Irondome (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

While i appreciate that you guys are trying to make something out of this whole mess, you may be wasting your time. Repeated attempts to get Annales to provide sources to back up his opinions usually yield little more than further 'your anti-Italian' rhetoric.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That is hardly fair. In the Greco-Italian article, I tried to introduce a couple of quotes from Swastika over the Acropolis by Dr Craig Stockings and Dr Hancock and they were both reverted without any sort of consultation or explanation. Both dealt with the fatigue of the Greek army, how the Italian offenses were taking their toll on it, and how the Greek army on the Epirus were running low on reserves of men and ammunition. Both Constantine and Cpiklias (who seem to be one and the same) and Alexkiou reverted my edits without consultation with me. When I took it to the Talk Page, neither of them could offer a good reason why they were reverted.

It is really unfair that I should be singled out for such abuse and mistreatment as this.AnnalesSchool (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• The problem here is that you are laboring under a false assumption. There is no truth Wikipedia, only information that we consider verifiable. Consequently a great many of the articles here contain incorrect information on people, places, things, events, etc because the information is verifiable. If you set out to defend the truth then you will be default become the bad guy whether you wanted to be or not because the truth breaks down into two separate elements - the truth as you (or me, or Ed, or anyone else here) sees it, and the facts as they are. To presume that you fight for the truth here is an incorrect assumption, you are instead fighting for the truth as you see it. Subtract the truth as you see and it what we are left with is the facts as they are, which is all we deal with here. As for the article's protection lockdown, that is part of the litmus test to see who here acts like an adult with regards to the content. Unto my experience those who complain the loudest about not being able to edit are usually those with something to lose or something to prove, and therefore by extension, usually the ones who are most likely going to end up blocked after the protection fades for being disruptive editors. As it stands right now your inability to work with others neutrally here and/or on the article talk pages is a pretty big indicator of who is going to end up blocked for immaturity under the umbrella of disruptive editing, and that would spell the end of your attempt to do any balancing in the article. Think about that, then think about what you've written, then take a day off and look and the reflection in the mirror and ask it if there is any harm in starting over fresh with an apology and a round table consensus building discussion. If the answer is yes, then things can start moving forward, but if not I can all but guarantee you will be the one blocked for disruptive editing next month. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"There is no truth in Wikipedia, only information that we consider verifiable" pretty much sums it up, and what is at the heart of the problem with Wikipedia. Much of what I write is actually on the Talk Pages, so it seems even "talking" can get one into a lot of trouble if people don't like what they hear.

The "truth" is that much that was/is written about Italy's wartime involvement in WW2 has been, in the words of Dr Gerhard Weinberg (and increasingly, others), "far too much denigration of the performance of Italy's forces during the conflict" (Journal of Military History, 2012). Too much of the content found on several wiki articles dealing with Italy's performance reflects this imbalance, so that Wikipedia is like a mirror that reflects and amplifies this imbalance. I know that Wikipedia doesn't do original research, but at least it can try to go some way to correct this imbalance. The problem is that millions of people go to Wikipedia as the first port of call every day. A student of military history will start his/her essay by simply Googling say "Italy in North Africa" and on the first page, Wikipedia will often be the first link mentioned. If the article is full of quotes, paraphrases, commentary and editorials "denigrating the performance of Italy's forces" (in the words of Weinberg), then the wrong impression will be conveyed to that student and his course of study can be eschewed in the wrong direction.

Anyway, this will be the last I will say on the subject. In future, I will try to work more cooperatively and sensitively with my fellow co-editors. I do apologize sincerely for any offense or injury I may have given. In future, I will put my money where my mouth is, and do less criticizing of others and more research in producing reliable sources that can add greater depth of knowledge to the article.AnnalesSchool (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but my patience with this user is long past being at an end. I admit that from the very beginning, my relationship with him has been strained, when I read arguments like "[the Greeks] would have been far better off surrendering to the Italians sooner than allow the Germans in, because the Germans were brutal masters who bankrupted and starved the entire country. Under Italian occupation instead, they would have been far better treated, which they were in the zones controlled by the Italians" and "Certainly the Italian military tradition was more humane and honorable than the German one", or this, which pretty much destroyed any hope for even a somewhat balanced POV on his behalf from the outset. There is room for improvement on Italian military articles, but not by a Wiki-crusader who only cares about changing defeats into quasi-victories.

I was not going to comment here, but now I see he lies outright when he thinks no-one is looking: "Both Constantine and Cpiklias (who seem to be one and the same) and Alexkiou reverted my edits without consultation with me. When I took it to the Talk Page, neither of them could offer a good reason why they were reverted.", is simply bullshit: the source he used and I reverted is a self-published book of no scholarly credentials, and the reversal was explained as such very clearly, along with a few other elementary mistakes (?) he made in some of his arguments in our discussion. Nothing of which he cares to acknowledge, of course; whenever he gets cornered on facts, the typical reply is to start ad hominem attacks or insinuations. Perhaps this leopard can change his spots, but I doubt it. Annales has been one year in Wikipedia, has less than 500 edits, all in the same area, and all raising an enormous bruhaha with every other editor he has interacted with. These facts speak for themselves. Constantine ✍ 01:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Cplakidas/Constantine, I have already apologized if I had stepped on people's toes and was perhaps too forthright and direct and have promised to turn over a new leaf and take TomStar81's advice and in the coming months produce reliable sources that I hope will balance out many of the articles dealing with the Italian involvement in North Africa, the Balkans, Greece and France. Happily there is a new generation of historians who are reevaluating Italy's performance in a more positive light. I will bring these authors and what they have to say to light for other editors to debate and ponder over and reach a new consensus. I now realise that only by "concensus" can we go forward, so in that respect, I have learnt my lesson. I will be more respectful and patient. But I am here for the long haul and so I say to you Cplakidas/Constantine, and to others, let's bury the hatchet and move forward together to improve the articles because if history is anything, it is not static but continually evolving as new research and investigations shed light on new information and what we once thought was Truth with a capital T, has been found to be not as true as we once believed.AnnalesSchool (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you truly aim to turn over a new leaf, I suggest that you 1) stop blaming the "Anglos". 2) Actually read some of the sources you appear to not like. You have previously commented that Playfair's OH is part of the problem. I have recently been rereading chunks, and he seems very balanced in regards to the Italians. An open mind toward sources outside your comfort zone will benefit you. 3) Stop taking information out of context. Two examples would be your comments re the regimental commander above, and the digs at Sica (complaining that the Italians lacked winter clothing can be seen in the context of several thousand men dead or wounded due to frostbite, and isn't evidence of anti-Italism). 4) back up our arguments with sources, but don't expect one source to overturn decades of consensus. You have contented, for example, that the Italian invasion of France was a bigger victory than historians have gave it credit for. As repeatly asked, back this up with sources and direct quotes to compliment the previous established consensus.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Raid on St. Augustine and dating styles

Hello! I'm in the process of adding and re-writing information on the article, and I have a question with the usage of dates of the battle. The given battle dates is apparently the O.S. dating, while the dates given from a few of the sources online gives the apparent N.S. dating: Historic Cities of the Americas p. 629, Wars of the Americas p. 117, Almanac of American Military History p. 54. Do I change the dates, or do something else? Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Show both? See Peter the Great as an example. Hamish59 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I can go about editing in that manner. Now, I would just have to find a source that actually list the O.S. date. LeftAire (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain Complex merge discussion

A {{merge to}} tag has been posted to the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, suggesting a merger of that article into the Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station article. If anyone is interested in weighing-in, please see Talk:Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station#Cheyenne Mountain Complex merge discussion. (I am also posting this on the Cold War and Aviation project talk pages, since they may have an interest in this discussion, too). Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Comandosupremo.com a reliable source?

Gday. The issue of this website being added as an external link recently came up at the North African Campaign article and the there discussion is ongoing. However, this aside there seems to be a wider issue as from a quick search I can see that Commandosupremo [3] has actually been used in at least 16 of our articles as a source (including many references which link to forum discussions on the website, not articles - a list of Wikipedia articles including the reference is here [4]). An example is at Biscari massacre where the forum post at http://www.comandosupremo.com/forums/topic/1784-historian-uncovers-new-details-on-sicily-massacre/ is used as a reference. This seems fairly concerning to me as I can't possibly see how it would qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS. That said I'm interested in other editors opinions on this issue, including possible solutions. I'm leaning towards excising all links to the site (or at least just the references to forum posts). Anotherclown (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing from the About page suggests that the site is run by anyone other than amateurs - I'd dump all references to it (and especially the forums). Parsecboy (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And we aren't "amateurs"????

I dunno. I find the articles and the sections dealing with feature articles, weapons and bibliographies, as well as the war-time footage, facts page and forums a useful source of information for readers who wish to do a bit more research. Of course as "amateurs", what's written can't be taken as the gospel truth and needs to be compared and contrasted with more reliable, peer-reviewed and published material. But it is a useful site that fulfills a need. And besides, there's a chap there called "Annales" who kinda has the same name as me, who has written some really good reviews too!!!AnnalesSchool (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we are amateurs, which is why Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source.

I'd be very cautious about promoting a website where you are a contributor - you can very easily stray into WP:SPAM territory. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI - I've gone through and removed these now, replacing the references with citations to books etc where I could find replacements in WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide image discussion

Input from persons familiar with the subject matter would be welcome at Talk:Armenian_Genocide#File:Armenian_Genocide_Map-en.svg_to_appear_as_POTD; there is currently a concern that an image scheduled to feature on the main page for the 100th anniversary of the genocide is not accurate, and I am not familiar enough with the matter to make a decision on my own. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Adolf Hitler's personal staff/archive2

Please take a moment of your time to throw in an oppose or support vote. Thanks in advance. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not how featured level review processes work at all. Editors are expected to review the article, and not just leave a quick yes or no. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Enlisted

Just in passing I came across Ranks and insignia of NATO air forces enlisted (and similar), now to my English viewpoint it doesnt actually make any sense as a title and is what I think of as the American "Enlisted" a common name in NATO for other ranks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. A more general term is probably "non commissioned," though that has a slight issue with the warrant officer, with officer privileges, of some services lying between commissioned officers and what in the U.S. are the non commissioned officers (NCO) sergeants/chiefs to recruits. I see on the page some warrant officers are included. Palmeira (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Enlisted in the United States Armed Forces means that the enlisted person has signed on to an enlistment of a certain term and taken an oath of enlistment and includes all pay grades from E-1 through E-9. This is in contrast to commissioned officers that hold a commission that continues indefinitely. Personnel below the pay grade of E-3 are not non-commissioned officers but are still enlisted personnel. Generally speaking, personnel in paygrades E-4 and above are non-commissioned officers with the exception of the U.S. Army specialist E-4, which is a pay grade E-4, while the corporal E-4 is considered a non-commissioned officer.

Using the term non-commissioned to describe pay grades E-1 through E-3 and the Army's specialist grade is not accurate and is misleading.

As for warrant officers, they hold a "warrant", but all warrants above WO-1 also hold a commission identical to that of a commissioned officer. As a side note, in the United States only warrant officers and commissioned officers hold a "rank"; the enlisted hold a "grade", although the use of the term rank is often used in place of grade in common usage.Cuprum17 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken on the rank/grade distinction. (Source: US Army Human Resources, lowly E-4 Specialist) Enlisted men hold a rank. The rank is a symbol of your authority or leadership position. The grade is an administrative artifact used for pay calculation. As an example, Officer Cadets hold the rank of CDT while they hold the grade of E-5, and are paid the same as a SGT with a similar time in service. Despite the grade similarity, a SGT is in a position of authority, leading other enlisted men, while a cadet has exactly zero authority because of his rank. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of the nuances of "non commissioned" in the U.S. usage. The problem is that "enlisted" does not strictly apply to NATO forces and that is the article's subject. Non commissioned in the U.S. generally applies to the highly experienced non commissioned officer to the newest recruit. In that system there is another group of usually highly technical and specialized people holding warrants, yet having commissioned officer privileges, so there are three categories: commissioned, warrant and non commissioned (holding neither commission nor warrant). In some English speaking countries those last are the "other ranks" but for this English language article something applying more generally to the NATO forces is needed than "enlisted." Palmeira (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The three groups of personnel in the United States Armed Forces are most commonly referred to as commissioned, warrant, and enlisted. The term non-commissioned is only used to describe those enlisted personnel that serve as sergeants and corporals in the army, marine corps, or air force as well as petty officers in the navy and coast guard. The term non-commissioned isn't used with reference to those serving in grades E-1 through E-3; it is used exclusively in the phrase "non-commissioned officer" which is understood to mean those serving in grades E-4 through E-9.Cuprum17 (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-commissioned also refers to holding a position with some sort of leadership authority. That's why you see the "specialist" rank in U.S. use. Those were created to allow for increased pay for soldiers requiring specialized training and skills but without leadership requirements. I'd be more comfortable with "other ranks" being used than I would "non-commissioned," since that has a totally different meaning. Intothatdarkness 14:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile "enlisted" does not "compute" in the NATO context of the article. "Other ranks" is or was common in the British context and fits the old "nine officers and 200 men" one finds in some historical accounts. To be "other" one first has to understand it excludes the "officers" of any NATO military organization. If you look at the "ranks" covered you will see those other than U.S. forces (and if you split hairs they are noncoms) have titles far from the "enlisted" concept everyone is talking about above: Canada—Chief Warrant Officer, Belgium—Adjudant-Major, Bulgaria—Офицерски кандидат (Officer candidate?), France—Major. The title requires adjustment. Palmeira (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There are probably as many ways to adjust and name the articles in question as there are countries with military services. In an article with a world wide viewpoint, "other ranks" would cover most situations with perhaps a few exceptions. In my personal experience as a young specialist five (E-5) in the U.S. Army (which has been many years ago), I was denied entrance to the Non-Commissioned Officers Club at Train Compound in Bien Hoa, Republic of Vietnam because the club manager correctly pointed out that I was not a non-commissioned officer. Had I been a sergeant (E-5), there wouldn't have been a problem. Ironically, the club manager was a corporal (E-4) who liked the idea of the power that his two chevrons gave him. My solution was to go the Enlisted Men's Club at Bien Hoa Air Base. The Air Force club manager had no problem with my presence as long as I had the money to buy the drinks I ordered. Such is life, and I wish I knew then what I know now... Cuprum17 (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The point is well taken. However other ranks is as Anglo centric as enlisted is American centric. Another suggestion would be welcome. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The comparative scale is "numbered" OR-1 to OR-9, what's the meaning of 'OR' in this case, what do sources (NATO or otherwise) call it? And on a related note, mightn't it be "NATO member air forces" since the air forces belong to their nations that are members of NATO rather than directly? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Using non commissioned (with or without the hyphen) should probably be avoided. While technically correct, in common parlance it's taken to mean NCO specifically. I agree with Lineagegeek, one term is Anglo-centric (the other ranks page is specifically titled "Other Ranks (UK)" - along with a Danish version) the other term is perhaps American centric (and to some people it incorrectly means a contradistinction to "drafted personnel"), just as "non-commissioned member" would be Canadian-centric, or other combinations. Unless the NATO STANAG addresses the issue (as GraemeLeggett suggests) something else is needed. I immediately thought of "rank and file" but that might not be right. Perhaps "Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen" using the appropriate one for each (ie "Soldiers" for the Army article, "Sailors" for the Navy one, etc.), or is that terminology also American-centric? (I'm not sure)... Gecko G (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.militaria.lv/stanag.htm quoting STANAG 2116 uses "officers" for OF-n "other rank" for OR-n, and "warrant officers" for WO-n, and "For NATO purposes, OR-5 to OR-9 inclusive are considered Non-Commissioned Officers." GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Why defer to the usage of a military force? Find a descriptive term congruent with the English language or treat it as a miscellaneous file item and add a description of the dilemma in each article where it occurs.Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom)

Hey guys, looking for a little research help on the above article. I have seen several references around the net that the division was based in Lancashire, where it was Western Command's training formation. However, I have not been able to tie down where exactly. I believe it may have been the training grounds at Altcar, where Western Command's weapon training school was located yet I have nothing solid or sourcable.

I have used the net and GoogleBooks to look up every regiment that was associated with the division without any luck. I have a few other sites to check, but I am not holding my breath to be honest (since there is little found by searching for the division itself). So if anyone has a source or knows where to look it would be much appreciated. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

HNoMs Otra

I've upgraded HNoMS Otra (1939) to start class, as it was clearly not a stub. would an independant editor assess it against the B-class criteria please? Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: What's a "2. class gunboat"? Should it be a redlink and have the period? Shouldn't the ship's builder, keel laying, and launch dates be mentioned in the text (in addition to the lead)? Why so many short sections? Otherwise I think it looks short, but not unduly so for a small ship with that kind of service life, so I'll give it a B once my concerns above are addressed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Manxruler is probably the best person to ask. Mjroots (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@The ed17: Hi. It's been a long while since I wrote that article, so it's really not all that good. The lead needs a complete rewriting, for one. As for the questions, as far I can remember "2. class gunboat" refers to a number of 19th century gunboats that were rebuilt in the 20th century for mine-related duties. Will have to check that. Yes, the building data should definitely be in the text, and I'll fix that as soon as I can find the time (it's very busy at work now). I'll also cut the number of sections, as you are right in that there are too many right now. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Lancaster B III JA914

The remains of Lancaster B III JA914 are displayed at the German Museum of Technology. Where was this aircraft built? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

According to [5] (which may not be reliable), it was built by A.V. Roe and Company at Chadderton. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional citations needed to create an article about the last US ground commander—a Marine—to depart the Vietnam War

Can anyone please help me find info about an obituary in a local newspaper at Cape Cod? Regarding the following obituary of James Hamilton Kean (a.k.a. Jim Kean and James H. Kean) I would like to know:

• Name of the newspaper and date of publishing
• If possible, also the name of the person that wrote the obituary.

I am trying to cite the following from the obituary (of an unnamed local newspaper at Cape Cod: "He personally supervised the evacuation of approximate 1000 Americans and several thousand Vietnamese in advance of approaching North Vietnamese force". If there are other sources, please say so. --20yardsaway (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The Barnstable Patriot?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• A google book lists the likely article as a reference. Cape Cod Times (capecodtimes.com) is the likely source, but I can not find any articles on Kean there. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I can rule out the Barnstable Patriot. (Kean died in 2008; none of the other local papers can be ruled out.) --20yardsaway (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Today's featured article/April 22, 2015

Does anyone have a better image for this TFA than File:SM UD 3 port.jpg? That's too grainy. Images are helpful for pulling in Main Page readers. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv 101II-MW-4384-28 - if you can figure out the download/licensing. (Hohum ^@) 09:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Start with this, it should eventually lead to the answer you're looking for. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dank, Hohum, and TomStar81: that's ... not the same ship or time period. This is the First World War's U-66. ;-) @Tom, a better page is commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany, but given the time frame, the ship's reused name, and it not being a capital ship, I'm going to wager that it will be really hard to find a photo. That being said, I did manage to find a PD (in the US, at least) image of the submarine's engine. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hohum's seems to be WWII. Mine seems to be WWI ... the date given for the photo is 17 August 1915. I like the engine pic, Ed, but I'm following Crisco on images, and I'm pretty sure he won't take it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops. (Hohum ^@) 15:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Dank, I shouldn't have tagged you there. I was referring to Hohum's and Tom's comments. No worries on the engine, I just wanted to list the only thing I found. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Glad you did ... I've been wondering what they looked like for years. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Darned shame, really... it would be nice if someone could dig up an image of the sub... or even a sister ship. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone: what are the odds that the image I linked above, the one from the article, could be sharpened and repaired, at least sufficiently for TFA purposes? - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Zero to none. I can't even be certain it's free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WT:Today's featured article/requests#8 May

There's a question at TFAR on how best to mark V-E day. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: The Mark Oliphant article might be a good candidate due to his work with the Manhattan Project. It's currently under review as a Featured Article candidate. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgive the statement of the obvious, the Manhattan Project has nothing to do with V-E Day, other than in the most distant "if they'd finished it a bit earlier, the A-bomb may have been deployed in Europe" sense. – iridescent 15:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Fokker Scourge

Fokker Scourge the relevance of the infobox added to the article has been questioned, does anyone know of a better one? thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it needs an infobox on the Fokker E.I as a link would suffice, IMO. WWI aviation really isn't my period, but there should be a overall campaign box for the aerial campaigns during the war that can be broken out into articles, which would be more appropriate than the current one. That would include the carrier air raids like Tondern, plus the strategic bombing efforts by the Zeppelins and the Gothas and their Allied equivalents. I don't know enough about how the air war over France/Belgium played out to suggest how that might be covered, but there should probably be regional ones as well covering Italy/Austria-Hungary, Salonica, Dardanelles, Palestine/Egypt, and Mesopotamia. It would probably be worth doing even with a mass of redlinks. Perhaps they'll attract some air-minded editor who can at least start the articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree about the infobox, it is probably confusing because the Fokker Scourge is about more than just the E.I. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I'd rather have something but I bow to the majority.Keith-264 (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Texas Rising preview from The History Channel

Regarding THC Texas Rising that has some of us upgrading the Texas Revolution article, here's from the from the History Channel: Preview of Texas Rising. FYI, Mdennis (WMF) — Maile (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. The article is looking fantastic. I have tried reaching out to the History channel contact again about the matter and am hoping to hear back soon. They've fallen a bit quiet. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It should reach Featured Article status very soon (it's only waiting on someone to do a spotcheck for close paraphrasing - any reviewers want to go take a look??), so I'm pretty confident it will be able to be on the Main Page for the premiere of the show. Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Germany MILHIST articles - assessment

WP:WikiProject Germany uses a similar B-checklist as WP:MILHIST. When MILHIST-members assess a Germany-related article anyway, please consider adding a copy of the checklist to the Germany banner template as well. The criteria are similar enough (in fact MILHIST requirements are a bit stricter), and such assessments can be done by any interested Wikipedian - this would help to avoid unnecessary backlogs. I try to fill out both banners anyway - being in both projects :). Many thanks for your help. GermanJoe (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We have a bit more formal but similar relationship with Wikiproject Ships. We could formalise it if there was consensus at Wikiproject Germany to do so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, and it could certainly help to reduce a bit of workload for article maintenance. I could check at WP:GER, how other project members think about such an idea, when other MILHIST editors have no objections. Generally, assessments by other Wikipedians for WP:Germany are not restricted - as of now anyone can already do them. One minor practical problem would be the mentioned difference between MILHIST- and GER-criteria: especially C-level requirements are more strict at MILHIST. Do you have a link to the MILHIST-SHIP discussions about this topic by chance (or a date to search for it)? GermanJoe (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Can't find any clear discussion, but whatever happened, it happened before June 2007. Instructions on the very first incarnation of Template:WikiProject Ships/doc state "If the article has an existing quality rating by WP:MILHIST, or on its own, initialize the value of class to the current rating, otherwise leave it empty". [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment#Archive_of:_Assessment_status_report_talk This September 2007 discussion] about an assessment drive states that "assessments by MILHIST are implicitly accepted by WPSHIPS", while [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_5#a_plea this post] promoting said drive suggested that drive-by assessors should only mark SHIPS articles B-class if MILHIST had already done so. -- saberwyn 02:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I was around at the time, but don't recall a specific discussion - my sense is that most of the members of WP:SHIPS were (and still are) also members of MILHIST, so functionally there wasn't much difference. In addition, the SHIPS project was pretty heavily modeled on MILHIST, including taking the B-class criteria wholesale. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Stub-, Start- and B-class are fully compatible between MILHIST and WP:Germany anyway. All MILHIST C-class articles are also WP:Germany C-class "automatically", as MILHIST requirements are stricter. Only original C-Class WP:Germany articles may need a closer look, as those C-Class requirements are not fully compatible with the stricter MILHIST C-class. I'll post a brief request for feedback at WP:GER as well to get more input. I haven't seen any completely false assessments in both projects, so relying on each others' judgement should be relatively uncontroversial. GermanJoe (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Cambodian Civil War

Cambodian Civil War is currently an A Class article belonging to your project but it is lacking in citations in a number of areas. It seems has fallen into some disrepair over the years. Perhaps someone here could go through it and bring it back up to standard? I've done what little I could. 49.197.25.169 (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Template_talk:World_War_I_infobox#RfC_(14_April_2015)

Input would be welcome. Srnec (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Assistance requested

An IP editor is attempting to insert content using user generated content sources at the article Xiong Yan (dissident). I am coming up to the third revision rule and need others to assist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just following up, I put the article on my watchlist to monitor after you left your message here and that IP seems to have gone quiet since then? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015

Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015

As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:

• indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course)
• add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it

It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au

We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan-Mughal Wars

Up for deletion on the basis that the articles string together battles to call them a war without sources naming the group of battles as a war. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917)

Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) One of out intrepid bilingual editors is transferring data from [6] the German page but we've hit a snag. Neither of us know how to move the map coords from the German to the English page. It looks easy but isn't, if anyone knows how I'd be grateful for advice. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I have test-added "Hill 60" with functional coordinates. However, the German and English template calls currently don't produce the exact same results: the English parameters may need further tweaking. For additional possible parameters, see Template:coord. GermanJoe (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Joe.Keith-264 (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

LIM-49 Nike Zeus

The military history article LIM-49 Nike Zeus is undergoing a FA candidacy and it looks like it could use some more feedback. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible hoax

In the course of a bit of work involving Cousinot's Chronique de la Pucelle I happened on the wikipage for the book itself. This is sound but at some point in 2013, an IP editor added a paragraph apparently refering to a fantastical tale included by Cousinot. Intrigued (it is Munchhausen-esque), I tried to locate it in the online edition with no result. I suspect it is an unspotted hoax. I've put a little more on the talk page but would welcome hoax-spotters to take a look Monstrelet (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a hoax. An online search for the alleged leader of the raid, Guiscard de Monfalcon, brings up no sources outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. The name is also nowhere to be found in the full text of the Chronique de la Pucelle, which is freely available on archive.org.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 06:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, it's pretty obviously a hoax - knights swimming the Channel in full armor is completely ridiculous. I've removed it from the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine a church bell weighing 500 kg. <sigh>--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem was that the fantastical can exist alongside the real in medieval writing, which is possibly why no-one checked it before. It just didn't fit Cousinot's style, which is down-to-earth and not given to fancy. Thanks Parsecboy for speedily removing the problem. Monstrelet (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on hyphenating Nazi SS names

I've started a discussion about using hyphens in the names of Nazi SS units and organizations at WT:Manual of Style#Hyphen for SS units and organizations. Feel free to offer your opinions on this issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

New Ancient Rome military navbox

If anyone is interested, I have created a horizontal version of the rather lengthy Template:Ancient Rome military sidebar, at Template:Ancient Rome military. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Defeat into Victory

Hi, do any of our members have access to this book? If so, would they be willing to check out the following pages (gleaned from GoogleBooos and Amazon) and update the 70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) accordingly?

On pp. 144, 157, and 249, Slim mentions the division. On p.292 he mentions being angered at something being allocated to Wingate, is this relevant to the division? Between pp.269-275, the fighting at Taung Bazar is recounted. Is this fighting during May 1943, and is there any mention of the role of the British 23rd Infantry Brigade?

Thank youEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a first edition :) (purchased for the princely sum of $10...). I'll see what can be added. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. There was nothing about the 23rd Brigade (for some reason, Slim's narrative here is mainly written at division-level). Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. 10 bucks for a first edition! Am fairly sure the 1990-2000 ish reprint I bought (and had to sell as part of a downside of my collection before moving) cost more :( EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp FAR

I have nominated Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:Mauthausen-Gusen_concentration_camp#FAR_needed, there's not much of a meeting of the minds at the moment ... the question is how best to proceed. There's a current FAR open; also, I don't see any evidence of A-class, so we could run the article through A-class. I've handled the dashes; the rest of it isn't stuff I usually tackle. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be going well. There's not a lot I can do. - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Proxy War Draft

The current article for proxy war appears to have a bad definition of proxy war. In addition, the list of examples seems unnecessary to me. It would make more sense to me to simply provide a link to List of proxy wars. Notable proxy wars could be listed under the See Also section. Because of these two issues, I've created a draft for it. You can see it here. Could I get some feedback on it? Compassionate727 (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft about Military person

Hi WikiProject Military, you might find Draft:Henry Bachtold interesting. Do tell me about whether you think the draft is suitable for inclusion by pinging me or placing a talkback on my talk page. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 14:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Darylgolden: As he was a brigadier he meets the requirements of WP:SOLDIER and is therefore notable enough for inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! The draft has already been accepted by someone else. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 12:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit War: World War I

In the last 24 hours, material has been added to the article that has been opposed by several editors (myself included). The war is just before 3RR, and little is being discussed on the talkpage. Intervention before 3RR?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for admin help with a histmerge

G'day, @WP:MILHIST coordinators: (and any other admins) Battle of Buna–Gona was recently overwritten by Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona with this edit: [7] This was done as a copy-paste move due to the existence of the article within articlespace. Could one of our resident admins please take a look and see if a histmerge could be undertaken in order to provide the appropriate attribution in the article's history log? Thanks in advance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Howdy. Not sure this is possible, even though I can see why it would be useful. It seems the manner in which the move was ultimately completed was suggested at ANI [8]. I wasn't a part of the discussion though. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal at Australian landing ship medium Clive Steele (AV 1356)

FYI I have started a merge proposal at Australian landing ship medium Clive Steele (AV 1356). Anotherclown (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been completed now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Groupement No.6

Dear military experts: Here's an old draft that will shortly be deleted unless someone takes and interest in it. Is this something that should be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Article to traduct from french wikipedia

Hello,

If you are interested in Napoleonic Wars, there is a new featured article in fr.wiki concerning its economical aspects.

Rifford (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. I'm pleased to see that it includes a photo I took as well ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Notable Enlistments: Conscription in South Korea

Hi,

I just need to point out that references are needed for notable enlistments (such as Lee Sungmin of Super Junior) in the Conscription in South Korea page.

Thanks!

Tibbydibby (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look at the page. Do we really need a huge list of Korean pop stars who have been conscripted into the military? It's beginning to look like a WP:COATRACK. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Flag farms in See also sections

I've been removing flags from infoboxes on military weapons articles for several months now. Sometimes I also see them in "See also" sections, and I remove them from there also. Today, I ran into an odd style in the See also section of a Taiwanese article, per this diff. It looks like this:

•   - Multiple Rocket Launcher
  • - M270 MLRS
  • - Type 75 MRL
  • - K-136 Kooryong MLRS
  • - BM-30 Smerch MRL
  • - A-100 MRL

I removed the flags and colorbox, but they came back again. :( The same user has also added or modified several other articles on Taiwanese weapons to have flags in the See also section, but some of the flags predate the IP's activities, but it may be the same person who originally added them. I haven't had time to troll the article histories yet to find out.

I've been operating under the assumption that using flags in See also sections isn't recommended by the project, but I wanted to confirm this before I begin a crusade of stripping these flags out wholesale. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been removing infobox flags too. This sounds like a new issue, I haven't come across. Never seen that before. It is my understanding flags are permissible in seperate "user" sections at the bottom of articles. See also flags sound dodgy to me Irondome (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like the flag style was originally added by the now indef-blocked User:124.9.91.102. Both this IP and the current one locate to Taipei, Taiwan. - BilCat (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits at Fall of Singapore

There has been some recent extensive editing by an IP, who appears to seriously have it in for Australian forces regarding their conduct during the defence. The sources appear to be a generalist history of Singapore and the transcript of a TV documentary. Can someone take a look? Irondome (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

William Scurry

Given the recent addition of some important information that corrects certain previously held erroneous views in relation to the self-firing "drip rifle" (or "pop off rifle") at Anzac Cove, etc., are there particular, relevant additions and embellishments that need to be made to William Scurry -- or does there need to be, also, in addition to the article on William Scurry, an independent article on the "drip rifle"?220.239.181.181 (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion about organizing military helmets

Just want to raise if it makes sense to put an infobox for military helmets such as the M1 and the PASGT? Thinking of a way to make it neat. Ominae (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If you do decide to do so, you need to remember than most military helmets are pre-20th century and design accordingly. Monstrelet (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Got that one. Maybe I need to test out a potential infobox syntax. Ominae (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be a very useful addition. Perhaps the @WP:MILHIST coordinators: coordinators could help work it up?  Roger Davies ^talk 10:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Perhaps a slightly more generic infobox that could be used for different types of armo[u]r would be useful? Kirill ^[talk] 14:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for review of National Association of Army Nurses of the Civil War

The author of National Association of Army Nurses of the Civil War would like a review of that article by editors familiar with the American Civil War. Roches (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

On hull/pennant numbers

Pursuant to the previous discussion that ended in no consensus, I've started an RfC at the article titles policy page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bumping this up on watchlists. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting Peer Review of No Gun Ri Massacre Article

Hi to all,

I was looking at No Gun Ri Massacre, and I was wondering if anyone -- preferably uninvolved in the article -- would be interested in conducting a peer review on it. It has been the site of some pretty intense disputes, particularly concerning some of the sources used, but the dust seems to have settled now. Still, it would be good to get a fresh perspective.

Thanks!

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Invasion of Somalia

There are conflicting statements as to which British division(s) invaded Somalia during World War II. We will focus specifically on Mogadishu on this first part. As of now statements are spilt into three groups: solely Nigerians, a combination of West African, East African, and South African troops, and soley South Africans, the last one seems the most likely to me since they too invaded the former British Somaliland. However, I found a YouTube video (hear me out first since it's from British Pathè) that states that Australian troops where the first to enter. Anyways, the invasion of Somalia as whole seems to have been mainly South Africans and Indians. This is all quite confusing. I would greatly appreciate the help of individuals with knowledge of World War II. AcidSnow (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

After checking more sources it seems that it was South Africans that lead the invasion of Somalia and captured Mogadishu. However, I will keep this open to obtain other thoughts on this. AcidSnow (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

1st (West Africa) Infantry Brigade appear to have captured Mogadishu. The motorised Nigerian Brigade of the 1st (African) Division. Due to prevailing attitudes of the era it may have been considered more appropriate to assign such successes to white Commonwealth formations. It is interesting that the sources indicating it was an African formation eminate from neutral (at the time) U.S media. Irondome (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying USA media pre-Civil Rights Movement were more accepting of "Africans" than the Brits? Anyways, I did another check and found that documents published during and after World War II attribute the invasion of Somalia and capturing of Mogadishu to South Africans. These include the Scientia Militaria of South Africa and various book published way after World War II, such as this book detonated to World War II published by the the University of Cambridge in 2015. More importantly, Winston Churchill himself states that Mogadishu was captured by South Africans. So I believe this puts an end to this don't you think? AcidSnow (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No I dont frankly, and please do not put words into my mouth or attempt to spin things. The S/A source merely says "British and South African forces" which proves nothing. And a 1987 SADF publication is perhaps POV. I shall be checking the exact wording of your sources. You appear to be unaware of the concept of sources which are "of their time", be it ideologically or sociologically. Be more aware of the context of sources please. Irondome (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

My apologize. I didn't mean to make it sound like you don't know what you're talking about, but rather that I don't understand what you said. You said "at the time" so I wanted to be clear. I had no desire to insult you or anything even close to that. Seeing that you were talking about something can you please explain it to me? Also what is "top spinning"? My apologize if these questions still sound like insults to you. AcidSnow (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No offence is taken, of course. But please do read my points above. due to an edit conflict I have had to refactor them. It is just that one must be aware of wider aspects to near contemporary sources. I am sure we can expore this together. Regards Irondome (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

- (e/c) Be careful not to accidentally modify others' posts, as happened earlier. Hit the "Show changes" button before saving edit. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Lol checking the exact words are fine, especially since I was highlighting them for you. Anyways, what do you think of the statements of Winston Churchill and the later book? AcidSnow (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ol' Winnie eh? (I have the greatest respect for WSC btw ;)), but I like the evidence put forward by Ashley Jackson (historian) published in 2006, which states an assault by the West African Brigade secured Mog. at this point. This conversation could be fun. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is all quite interesting. What about the YouTube video that I showed you? It even shows Australian troops entering the city first lol. May I know that date given by Ashely Jackson? Never mind I found the date given by him. AcidSnow (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Its a British official newsreel showing Australian troops entering Mog. We ain't talking BBC News 24 here. No combat scenes of the actual taking of Mog, just what appears to be an Aussie garrison force moving up. About 15 seconds of it out of 4 minutes of footage. It proves nothing. I found the Libyan battle scenes more interesting. Note the heavily modified WW1 pieces being used by us during the bombardment scenes. 60 pdrs, 6" guns and what appear to to be 5.9" howitzers. Some 25 pdrs being used. Shows how we were reliant on elderly ordinance in 41' in Libya. As for proof that the Aussies took Mog? Not a jot. Speak tmrw. Got to be up in 4 hours. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't say that this proof of anything, rather it shows Australians entering the city. I found it interesting since they are a completely different group. My apologize for keep you up late. AcidSnow (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

But it does not disprove that African forces actually took the town, which is why I assumed you included it as a source. Don't worry about keeping me up, it's not you AcidSnow, it's just bloody wikipedia. Catch you tomorrow. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

British historian Martin Gilbert states that South Africans captured the city. Sadly, the man died relatively recently. AcidSnow (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The relevant volume of the British official history is online here. It states that the 23rd Nigerian Brigade captured Mogadishu unopposed. There were virtually no Australian forces in this theatre (other than one or two RAN warships when the Italians invaded British East Africa, and a tiny number of advisers to Ethiopia). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It was reported on March 1st, 1941 just five days after that South African troops captured the city. So this goes along with the statements made by Winston Churchill and that of Martin Gilbert. AcidSnow (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I also have a Daily Mail report from Tuesday, October 3rd 1944 that the Germans were testing atomic bombs on the Baltic coast. War Papers Fontana Press, London, 1989. ISBN 0-00-637476-X. Do not believe what you read in the contemporary press necessarily AcidSnow. Please read my tips on near contemporary sources above. Please grasp that an African formation took Mog. Irondome (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The British official history is likely to be the best source here. No weight should be placed on a one paragraph news story which appeared in a suburban Australian newspaper at the time (the paper obviously didn't have first hand reporters in this area!). Nick-D (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's quite interesting. Anyways, it seems quite odd that historians like Martin Gilbert would "lie", especially since his work comes much after this (the book I linked to is from 2001). The same goes for Winston Churchill. I will be back shortly, if not then tomorrow if I get caught up in something else. AcidSnow (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I assume, AS, that you have read all of the Gilbert's volumes documenting Churchill's war. If you have, then you will know that Gilbert faithfully uses the source materials in the Churchill archives, without using later material? This is quite deliberate. He provides an almost minute-by minute account of what Churchill knew at the time. It was only in Burma some 2 years later that African formations began to be respected for their combat capabilities and stoicism. We are dealing with a different world. A racist world. White Africans were preferable in scoring a military success. The Jewish people were only allowed their own brigade in 1945, in Italy. History can be ugly, and our "heroes" would probably have deeply repugnant views in 2015. To study history, you must accept the warts. A painful reality. Regards Irondome (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why should Jews be segregated off into their own separate brigade? Sounds kind of racist to me. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

On re-reading I think I misunderstood your post. If this is so I apologise. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that Irondome was referring to the British Army's Jewish Brigade Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that after re-reading. I must incidentally chip in and say that as somebody who has worked on African military history quite a bit I can definitely confirm that contemporary sources tend to favour "white" units over "black" ones—in my writing I try to do my best to balance for this—but at the same time I think it is important not to fall into the trap of overcompensating. Ugly and racist as it may seem to us today, the fact remains that "black" units such as the King's African Rifles, Nigerian Brigade, Rhodesian African Rifles etc were overwhelmingly trained, officered and led in the field by whites. It seems somewhat unfair to me to deny the command element any credit at all for what the units achieved. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Moyse-Bartlett's history of the King's African Rifles (Volume 2 pp 512–513) says that a platoon of C Coy 1/3 KAR was with the lead elements of the Nigerian Brigade when they reached the outskirts of Mog, but a patrol of infantry and armoured cars found the town undefended. Stapleton's Military History of Africa (Vol 1 p 212) says Mogadishu was captured by the motorised Nigerian brigade of the 11th African Division. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of the Alamo being re-evaluated

In response to recent edits and questions on the Talk:Battle of the Alamo, a framework is being laid down by Karanacs for a detailed examination of the article's current state. The end goal is to get it up to the standard of Texas Revolution. Although the article achieved FA status in 2009, several thousand edits have happened since then. — Maile (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Proxy War Needs Reevaluated

The article proxy war recently was overhauled. Due to the significant changes, I think the article should be reevaluated to see if it fits into a different class now. If somebody could take care of that, I would appreciate it. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

UNPROFOR casualties

I've started a discussion at Talk: Bosnian War about the number of casualties that UNPROFOR suffered. There seems to be some disagreement between sources, with some stating almost twice the number specified on the UN website. Input would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on the start date of the Somali Civil War

A discussion has started regarding the appropriate start date of the Somali Civil War to note in the article's infobox. Wider community input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: - thankyou. Basically rebellions started in the mid 1980s but some users are advocating we use the date 1991, which does have some cites support it, but is the date the dictator fell(!!). There are also serious concerns with the views, possibly POV, of a major contributor, User:Middayexpress. An RfC was previously raised over his conduct (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress) but the final decision was that the forum was possibly not appropriate for the concern (a range of other options such as AN/I were suggested). For this reason, comments would also be very welcome at the discussion immediately below the date discussion, which tries to focus on perceived POV. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Rejewski, cryptography

Is there anyone here who is familiar with cryptography? Marian Rejewski is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Marian Rejewski/archive1, and is close to a save, but we need help (see comments on the FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Military truck infobox

Hello, I'd like to know if there are any guidelines on which infobox (Template:Infobox weapon or Template:Infobox automobile) should be used for military trucks. I've noticed another editor asked the same question before on Template talk:Infobox weapon, without answer.—Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 19, 2015

A summary of one of Milhist's Featured Articles will appear on the Main Page soon. The WP:FAC nominator (a former Milhist coord) hasn't edited in years, so I'm hoping someone else will have a look. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out that anyone would like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if someone could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

User:Citadel48 keeps disrupting Bijeljina massacre (an A-Class article) and stubbornly refuses to understand what is problematic with his/her edits . I've run out of patience and really don't feel like getting to an edit war with an inexperienced user. Someone take over from here. 23 editor (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:23 editor has very strong views on what needs and does not need to be included. With views that strong, he or she must consider self publishing or increase their level of tolerance towards alternative views on what is important and relevant. The most disappointing is the lack of basic competence resulting in challenging CNN and BBC type sources on alleged copyright infringement grounds. The user should get basic training in concepts such as fair use doctrine and should not be given editorial functions. Editorial rights are a responsibility that requires a level of maturity. tolerance and competence that seem to be lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

ARBMAC warning given, I've also attempted to point out the issues with youtube links and other problematic edits. We'll see what transpires. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

McFarland sources

Colleagues, I thought I might want to bring to your attention: Wikipedia:McFarland. In coordination with the Wikipedia Library, publishers McFarland are offering PDFs of up to five books per editor who signs up. There are quite a few Military History books, so I thought you all might want some free resources. :) A list of their Military History books is here. Miyagawa (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi everybody,

I'm looking for some editors who might willing to leave their sentiment and opinion to following case: User: Pensiveneko is engaging in mutiple webpages, with the commonly tenor to remove all the iffy things that might not fit his POV within a week. See: 1 (I will remove Bias / Opinion) 2,3, 4.

The User is name-calling serious and reputable publications of scholars into an inappropriate magnitude, because of this, I felt responsible to report his behavior to an Administrator: Nick-D See our conversation: 1

I appreciate and welcome further contributions. Thank you. Regards LikePancakes (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Mate, there is no requirement to create a log-in, but some editors are likely to take you far more seriously if you do. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've created now this account. Going to replace my ip-sign on the talk pages. Regards, Ben. LikePancakes (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I would remind all editors that WP:RS is a top priority. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTHERE can also be factors which may well apply in this case. You all know where WP:ANI is should it be necessary to use it. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Good Lists

For Lists, most WikiProjects have no quality assessment classifications between List-class and FL-class. MILHIST is exceptional in that CL, BL and AL are all provided - but there is no class between BL and AL, equivalent to GA (see WP:MHA#SCALE). There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List, which would fit into that gap. Please add your comments there. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This makes so much sense it hardly warrants discussion. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Two British Army generals

I have created stubs on 2 Scottish politicians who also appear to have been generals in the British Army. Can anyone help improve the military side of these articles?

• Duncan Campbell (MP for Ayr Burghs) (c.  1763–1837) -- I have reliable sources which confirm his rank, but nothing on what he did in a military career which coincides with the wars with France
• Charles Stuart (1810–1892) -- sources which confirm that he was a general, but almost nothing else. The article is barely a stub :(

Any expansion would be great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Attention requested

Asking for assistance with the article 2007 Shinwar shooting. While POV issues have been raised regarding it in the past, it gives heavy weight the the allegations of war crimes by United States Marines, and gives very little weight to the court of inquiry which cleared the Marines of wrong doing. I have added links to the current Military Times series being published about the event. I hope we can collaborate to improve the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Who controlled the court of enquiry?Keith-264 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The United States Marine Corps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am bemused to see that an editor whose user page advertises themselves as a former member of the US Army is arguing that more weight should be given to internal inquiry by a branch of the US armed services. I suggest that this article would benefit from the scrutiny of editors whose idea of NPOV doesn't derive from service with the military forces of either the Taliban or the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

My past service has nothing to do with this. There are WP:BLP issues where it gives undue weight to the POV that the Marines committed War Crimes, when a Court of Inquiry found that they did no wrong doing. And to make this about me fails to follow WP:AGF as well as can be seen as a falling under WP:CRY. Furthermore, the edit above shows that the editor may have a prejudice against those with a service history. An admin should know better.

Now back to the topic at hand. I brought this up, because IMHO the POV is heavily weighted towards a POV that brings up WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL issues. As this is about a military engagement it falls within the scope of this wikiproject, and thought more eyes on the subject would help provide a balanced POV. I am not saying that the POV that a war crime might have been committed should be expunged. What I am saying is that POV that the Marines are innocent should be given due weight, which is not what, IMHO, it is receiving now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast:, the case you make here is based on your assumption that the US Marines internal inquiry is the most important assessment. NPOV does not consist of assuming that either side's internal reviews of its actions in an armed conflict are the last word on the topic, which I why I suggest that the article would be helped by the attention of an editor whose background is not in the service of either the US Army or the Taliban.

Your edits have added references to articles in the pro-US Military Times, and noted that these articles are praised by an American Conservative website. Cherry-picking such pro-US-military sources is not an NPOV approach. Where are the Afghan perspectives on the Court of Inquiry, or the perspectives of NGOs and human rights bodies?

There are no BLP or libel issues if the various inquiries and perspectives are all reported accurately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The USMC exonerated itself? Flagrant conflict of interest=unreliable source surely?Keith-264 (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at trying to copyedit and clean up the article as we speak, but there are quite a few sources that are dead links. I recommend efforts are made to find new sources from all angles to try to make a really NPOV account. In the meantime I have removed the categories referring to the incident as "mass murder" and a "massacre" as this seems to me libellous along the lines RightCowLeftCoast has outlined. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just added a few sources describing it as a massacre, so will categorise it accordingly. (I would prefer that we didn't have categories called "massacre", but so long as they exist this one seems to fit). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So long as it is backed up by sources I will not complain. Keith: I feel I must clarify that the USMC did not exonerate itself; rather it exonerated some of its personnel. More self-serving would surely have been to condemn the accused Marines and say they had gone beyond USMC guidelines. The court actually did exactly the opposite. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Cherry picked"? Hardly, I have attempted to find sources relevant to the subject, and replaced dead links critical of the Marines. The Military Times series, while being in the United States, is a reliable source, and is the most in-depth source published on the subject so far this year. I have also included content critical of the board of inquiry. Therefore, to white wash my edits as being POV is erroneous at best, and shows bad faith at worse. What I saw when I brought up this article for review, was an article that was heavily skewed towards a libelous POV against the Marines. As I stated, I was not here to remove the POV that the Marines committed war crime{s), but that they should be balanced with the POV that they acted within their rules of engagement, and were exonerated by the board of inquiry. I believe that Cliftonian's edits have been helpful in achieving neutrality.

Ultimately, as this article is about actions by living individuals it should be governed by WP:BLP, and we should be cautious that the POV of this article not devolve in an WP:ATTACKPAGE.

As far as the comment regarding "American Conservative", I point towards WP:POVSOURCE. Many of the sources added by myself and other editors, including BrownHairedGirl, have an obvious POV. I included one questioning whether George W. Bush is guilty of war crimes, yet my addition of the Washington Free Beacon is singled out? Kettle black. Lets focus not on each other's edits, but on improving the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast:, WP:POVSOURCE is an essay, not a policy or guideline it does not represent a consensus. Military Times is indeed a reliable source, but it approaches topics from an American perspective, which should be acknowledged. The first part of its article is entitle "Part 1: The tragic betrayal of an elite Marine Corps commando unit", which is a long way from an NPOV perspective. The article now includes a whole para on that partisan source, with quotes from US servicemen ... but no balancing commentary on the inquiry from other sources or quotes from Afghan survivors of the episode. The use of The Washington Free Beacon was to add emphasis to the POV MT artcle, without declaring that WFB is an explicitly partisan publication with few of the characteristics of an RS.

Criticism of the sources I added is misplaced. They are not used to provide any commentary, but simply to point to the existence of an alternative title for the incident, in addition to the already well-sourced main title. If used for substantive commentary, they would of course need to be balanced.

The article is still very weak. For example, it gives very little detail of the actual findings of the Court of Inquiry, on which RightCowLeftCoast places such emphasis. The whole paragraph of denunciations of the inquiry by an American source whose stance is explicitly pro-Marines is not balanced by any critiques of the inquiry from other perspectives. It is particularly unbalanced that the article closes with a statement by participants from one side, excluding the other voice.

RCLC has not pointed to any content that was potentially libellous, and any BLP concerns apply equally to the Afghans involved in the episode. There is a dispute here between two POVs, and the current shape of this article is excessively dominated by the blatantly partisan MT article alleging "betrayal of an elite Marine Corps commando unit". That perspective is of course part of the story, but it currently has WP:UNDUE weight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The article contains two paragraphs about the inquiry, but two paragraphs about allegations against the Marines. The one paragraph about the Channel 4 News source (775 characters), is longer than the paragraph referencing Military Times (622 characters). Furthermore, the paragraph about the inquiry itself is balanced, including the POV that oppose the inquiry's findings. No such balancing sentence(s) are in the multiple paragraphs that allege the Marines actions; rather the article takes several paragraphs (in the body) until the allegations are refuted.

Therefore the claim by BrownHairedGirl that the Military Times content is given undue weight holds no water.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is silly. "The one paragraph about the Channel 4 News source (775 characters)" actually refers to Channel 4 story reporting 3 uninvolved parties: Wikileaks, the International Bar Association and Amnesty International. The MT paragraph consists solely of self-exculpatory quotes from one of the parties to the incident .... with no balancing quotes or comments from Afghans.

Criticism of the report (rather than of the incident) consists of:

• This report was dismissed by those who view the event as a war crime ... 13 words, with no names or quotes.
• 104 words on the one sole critique of the report (the pro-Marines article in MT), complete with extended quotations.

That is not balance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I had wanted to expand from these two sources (the ones following "This report was dismissed by those who view the event as a war crime"), but both of them came up "server error" on my machine. Have you had any success bringing them up so we can expand from them? —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I managed to get them working. One (Kay Danes) did not even mention the court of inquiry verdict (let alone the report being dismissed by anybody), see link here; and the other (Michael Haas) said only that it "infuriat[ed] Afghanistan's human rights commission" (see link here) —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the Manual of style for Japan-related articles

Please come participate in the discussion on changing Romanization in the Japan-related manual of style. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Melee

Melee has recently been nominated of moving Talk:Melee#Requested move 9 March 2015 and then for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee). There is now a debate over whether is appropriate to include the maintenance {{coatrack}} in the article Melee. More participation in the debate on talk:Melee might help build a consensus. Of course as nothing is ever a battle on Wikipedia no one expects there to be melee. -- PBS (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article include a list of the names of the Yugoslav National Army soldiers killed?

A RfC has been opened at Talk:1992 Yugoslav People's Army column incident in Tuzla regarding whether the article should include a list of the names of the Yugoslav National Army soldiers killed. Feel free to chime in. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Categorisation of Royal Scots Army personnel

I am working on a biography of an officer of the Royal Scots Army (1660–1707), who from 1689–92 was a captain in the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot.

So far as I can see, there is no Category:Royal Scots Army personnel nor any appropriate regimental sub-cat of Category:Scottish soldiers. Any suggestions on how to categorise this phase of his career?

This man later served in the post-1707 British Army, which I have no prob categorising, but I am stuck on his earlier Scottish service. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Your subject seems to have been both a "British Scot" and a "Non-British Scot." I'm wondering if the existing Category:Scottish soldiers should be unhooked from Category:British Soldiers and left only as a sub of Category:Soldiers by nationality. That may create a maintenance issue for currently categorized Scottish Soldiers.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

New artefact images from York Museums Trust

Papier Mache decoy head

Hi, I've just uploaded some high-quality images of World War One objects from York Museums Trusts collections as part of the Yorkshire Network GLAMwiki Project. I hope you find them useful! Let me know if there's anything else I might be able to help with. Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that Sherlock Holmes? --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Norman Dike (revisited)

Norman Dike is primarily known as "Foxhole Norman" to viewers of the HBO series and readers of the associated books (Stephen Ambrose et. al.). While trying to broaden the article, I came upon two interesting items. In his published biography, Clancy Lyall relates that Dike did not panic, but acted erratically because he had been wounded. A blog (I know) quotes Brown University Alumni Monthly dated April 1947 as follows:

Capt. Norman S. Dike, Jr., '41 holds two Bronze Star awards for heroic action. The first followed his exploit at Uden, Holland, with the 101st Airborne Division from which between Sept. 23 and 2!i (sic), 1944, he "organized and led scattered groups of parachutists in the successful defense of an important road junction on the vital Einhoven-Arnhem Supply Route against superior and repeated attacks, while completely surrounded." Later, at Bastogne on Jan. 3, 1945, “he personally removed from an exposed position, in full enemy view, three wounded members of his company, while under intense small arms fire."

The Lyall book is in Google Books; few of the alumni monthlies are on line and I could not find April 1947. If anyone has access to the alumni pubs, please check for the paragraph in question. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please disregard the request above. I stumbled around until I broke the code on the page numbering for the magazine. However, I would appreciate it if one one or more here will look at the way I've integrated the information more favorable to Dike. It does strike me that he could have been the source of the information in the alumni monthly; if so, he didn't paint a favorable picture of himself to counter other publications because it was years too early. There's still Lyall's account to consider.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

TFA nom needs comments

Hi all, I'd appreciate if you could comment (either in support or against) on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rivadavia-class battleship. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in September 1942

As I've got the "show article quality" preference set, I was a little surprised to that the List of shipwrecks in September 1942 shows as Start class instead of List class. This is apparrently due to a Milhist assessment. Any reason that all B class parameters are not met? IMHO, they are. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

U-756 has no citation. (B1) (That's as far as I went, there may be more citations missiong) I would think that B5 is met, however. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The convention with these lists is that all entries either have a citation, or a linked article, which U-756 does. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Mission Boston

See my comments on this AfC submission. Do you agree? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hoping for further description on two photos

Obviously, Soviet aviator's headgear, but I'm guessing someone knows more than that. - Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

At a minimum, I can tell you that the top photo is most likely part of a formal attire uniform like what the military forces wear for formal occasions - state functions, state funerals, etc. The bottom one looks to be part of a combat uniform and likely was issued to pilots as part of their flight suit. I'd venture that its possible the bottom one was for high altitude bombers since such planes were not pressured until the 1950-60s, but that is a genuine guess as opposed to the educated guesses above. I would also suspect that the blue coloring on the top picture and perhaps the braided rope may suggest a branch and rank of some sort, respectively, but again this is just a guess. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

By no means expert, but based on U.S. gear, the bottom one could date into the late '30s.

I'm wondering if they might not be Sov Navy, too: or did VVS control all the air assets until recently? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The first one appears to be an M69 air force officers' service cap (cf. [9]).

I'm not sure what the second one is, although the velcro on the chin strap would date it into the 1950s or 1960s at the earliest. Looking at the padded ridge on the the top, it may be a liner for a flight helmet; if that's the case, it's possible that the insignia was added later, and wasn't part of the original piece. Kirill ^[talk] 16:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Melvin Garten

Before I start any effort towards creating an article, I would like others to look at the research I have found thus far for Colonel Melvin Garten, U.S. Army (ret.) who recently died (Village Voice source). Potential subject received some coverage in this book, David H. Hackworth; Julie Sherman (15 April 1990). About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior. Simon and Schuster. p. 529. ISBN 978-0-671-69534-7., and in-depth coverage in this book, Seymour Brody (2004). Jewish Heroes & Heroines of America: 151 True Stories of Jewish American Heroism. Frederick Fell Publishers. pp. 260–261. ISBN 978-0-88391-026-9. (same author later wrote piece about the potential subject in a pdf published by Florida Atlantic University). Potential subject was also a subject of an article published by the Oregonian in 2012, and another article published by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in 1953. While the potential subject appears to pass WP:ANYBIO & WP:GNG, potential falls short of WP:SOLDIER only being awarded one second-tier valor medal, and not being a flag/general officer. It can be argued that as a lieutenant colonel whose unit's actions were given significant coverage during Vietnam, that the subject does meet SOLDIER's criteria about "commanded a substantial body of troops in combat" or "played an important roll in a significant military event" Given that there will likely be WP:NOTMEMORIAL objections, should this article be written?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Kumanovo Attack - article name

I have opened an RFC at Talk:2015 Kumanovo shootings in regards to the article name. Any thoughts from editors would be greatly appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

FAC for Battle of Labuan needs some more reviewers

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Labuan/archive1 (my nomination) has been open for just on three weeks, and would benefit from additional reviewers - with negative or positive comments. Thanks Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Admiral Gerald Charles Dickens

During WW 2 Admiral Gerald Charles Dickens should have mentioned the Norwegian merchant fleet and its importance for carrying supplies to GB, is there any one can give me a reference to this... Breg --Pmt (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Manxruler: can you help? Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Pmt: and @Mjroots:: Yep. I find two quotes by Admiral Gerald Charles Dickens relating to the Norwegian merchant navy.

The first was from a BBC speech in January 1941:

"If it had not been for the Norwegian Merchant Navy we might as well have asked Hitler for his terms."

The second was a "War Commentary" broadcast in February 1942:

"Norway's is indeed a remarkable contribution. Overrun by the Germans, she might have submitted and given up her Merchant Navy. Norway did not submit, but produced her nearly 1,000 ships and over 30,000 splendid seamen to man them. Not only were these ships among the fastest and most modern in the world, but they included several hundred of the finest tankers, of which we were very short. Losses of ships and men have been heavy. So Norway's contribution - it would hardly be an exaggeration to say - has been indispensable."

If you want, I can provide references for the above. Manxruler (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Third opinions

There's a on-going dispute over the result's nature of the Battle of Arsuf, if someone else wish to participate. Aozyk (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Baden-Powell

I have nominated Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ladislaus I of Hungary: peer review

All comments and suggestions are welcome here. Thank you for your time in advance. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment (WWI)

Should Jabal Shammar be listed as a Central Powers co-belligerent during World War I?
See Template_talk:World_War_I_infobox#RfC_(14_April_2015). —Srnec (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the decision has already been made, but yes, I agree. The involvement of emerging nations and fracturing colonies is part of what makes this a world war.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. I want it removed, but another editor insists on inserting it. Jabal Shammar was neither an emerging nation nor a fracturing colony. Srnec (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. You may be right. I was under the impression that their conflict with the Saudis was part of the Saudi alliance with the Entente, but it seems to have wrapped itself up before the start of the war. That is, unless someone has a source that says differently. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment on No Gun Ri

Hi to all,

Once more, I am requesting a review of No Gun Ri Massacre, in part due to the intense feuding and debate over sources that has transpired on that page. If anyone were to volunteer, I would be very grateful.

Thanks,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare Suite Change

Hello everyone, I'm a communications guy at Lockheed Martin, and I just wanted to bring your attention to a small error about Lockheed Martin's SEWIP program (AN/SLQ-32C(V)6) for the Littoral Combat Ship on AN/SLQ-32_Electronic_Warfare_Suite#Future. The system used on USS Freedom (LCS-1) is a scaled version of Block 2, but it is not Block 3, which is not in production yet. The reference linked in the article can easily be misread to think it is the Block 3 system, but the contract for SEWIP Block 3 (which will be a future upgrade to Lockheed Martin's AN/SLQ-32C(V)6) was only just awarded. I would edit it myself, but I don't think you'd want a corporate guy mucking about in your WikiProject, which is hugely impressive in scope, btw. (GLesLM (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC))

Thankyou GLesLM for bringing this to our attention. We very much appreciate your input. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, thank you for your textbook-perfect adherence to Wikipedia's policy on this kind of thing (WP:COI). Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Melee

I'd like to get some sunlight over at melee. The article's notability is dubious. It seems to be more of a prose list of times people in history have used the word "melee", more than an article on a coherent military topic. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Rape during the Rwandan Genocide

Rape during the Rwandan Genocide has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 06:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Danish battle

What are your thoughts on Draft:Battle of the Isefjorden? Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Does WPMILHIST support "Class=draft" ? (thus categorizing and keeping track of MILHIST drafts) {{WPMILHIST|class=draft}} -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not at the moment, but that's relatively easy to fix; I'll add it later today. Kirill ^[talk] 07:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've added support for drafts to {{WPMILHIST}}. Note that this will automatically assess any page in the draft namespace appropriately; there is no need to explicitly set the class parameter. Kirill ^[talk] 07:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this a battle, though? Do we have another term for such entirely one-sided incidents? Manxruler (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Battle" seems reasonable, even in situations like this where one side was overwhelmingly defeated and the other side almost unscathed, such as Battle of Zanzibar. While a victory this one-sided was unusual between European powers, it arose fairly frequently during colonial and post-colonial campaigns where one side was much better armed than the other, and we still use the term "battle" on, for instance, Battle of the Shangani or Battle of Sariwon. Mogism (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I see now that the Danes fired back, which I missed at first glance. Battle it is. Manxruler (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Having googled things, I can confirm that in Danish this incident is referred to as "Slaget i Isefjorden" or "Slaget på Isefjorden", meaning the Battle in/on Isefjorden. As Isefjorden is Danish for "the Isefjord", and our article on the fjord is called Isefjord, I think an article on this engagement should be called "Battle of the Isefjord".

On another note, before this article should be launched, it needs thorough copy-editing and many more inline citations. Right now there are far too few. Manxruler (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Plenty of thanks for your comments! Could you reiterate the basics for the author to see? Here's another draft. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

My points: 1. The article should be called Battle of the Isefjord. 2. The draft needs copy-editing. 3. The draft needs many more in-line citations. There are loads of online references available, use them and preferably get hold of one of the Danish books on the subject. 4. The citations can't just be bare URLs like they are now. Manxruler (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Manxruler Re your point 1: One can't transfer Danish grammar to English. In English "the" is not used before proper names. "I am going to the city" is correct but "I am going to the Copenhagen" is wrong. We've had this same debate at the articles of various SAAB aircraft too (Gripen, Draken, etc) as Swedish has a similar construction. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Okay. Although no-one in the Scandinavian language sphere would say that they were "I am going to the Copenhagen" (the -en ending of Copenhagen is not related to Danish grammar, as Copenhagen is not a Danish name, København, on the other hand, is), at least not to my knowledge (I'm Norwegian, and written Danish is very close to one of the versions of written Norwegian). Well, just "Battle of Isefjord" then? It would appear that the Danes call the fjord "Isefjord" too. Manxruler (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I just tagged a bunch of military draft articles with the banner, through a cursory trawl through DRAFTspace. See Category:Military history draft pages for the pages. (Q) are duplicate draft articles of articlespace pages eligible for deletion under db-same? I did not tag the dupes. There are probably many biographical articles in DRAFTspace that fall under MILHIST, but I didn't bother going through the bio articles. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

class=setindex ?

Talk pages for ship indices are routinely tagged with {{WPMILHIST|class=DAB}}. This may give the impression that the articles are disambiguation pages. But they're not. WP:NOTDAB states, in bold, a set index article is not a disambiguation page. Do we need a parameter class=setindex? Stanning (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me. "class=SIA"/"class=setindex" Ofcourse, it would be better if WPBANNERMETA had a "type=" parameter to set the type of page being flagged, since this is a pagetype and not a classtype classification. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added support for set indices to {{WPMILHIST}}; the template will accept either "setindex" or "si" as the class name and react appropriately. Please test it out and let me know if anything isn't working as expected. Kirill ^[talk] 07:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I gave it a try at talk:HMS Ulysses and talk:USS Ulysses -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kirill: Many thanks for quick action - it works. Stanning (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea

Is CUES notable enough to warrant an article given that PRC and USA are now using it?

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2715

Hcobb (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell from that link what CUES is. Found [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304049904579517342779110078 this] which says "CUES sets English as the standard language of communication, and establishes the radio frequencies that should be used between naval ships and aircraft, according to the draft seen by The Wall Street Journal". I'd say a test is, can you write an adequately sourced article which is more than a stub without just quoting the text of the protocol? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/improving-order-in-the-east-china-sea/
• http://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/tabid/5693/Article/564121/navy-leaders-agree-to-code-for-unplanned-encounters-at-sea-at-14th-western-paci.aspx
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-23/pacific-navies-approve-conduct-code-for-unplanned-sea-encounters

Budding off from U.S.–Soviet Incidents at Sea agreement for now. Hcobb (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Clean-up Military Imposter BLPs

Hello everyone. I'm still working on a draft article about Military Imposters (what Americans call "Stolen Valor"), which I intend to go live with about June or so. In preparation for this, I was scouring around wikipedia to find related articles and information, and came across the following biographical ones. These all appear to be individuals accused or convicted of lying about military service, but there is nothing else notable about these people that I can see. And according to WP:PERP, they don't qualify because some have never been convicted of crimes and others have had no coverage in any reliable works since their convictions. Therefore I am trying to delete them. A previous attempt was made with PROD by other editors but the admins rejected those because they are supposed to be "uncontroversial" deletions, so looks like we have to do this the hard way. I only nominated two for AFD because I can't keep track of so many at the moment. Feel free to comment on deletion discussions or nominate the others if you can take care of monitoring them (please mark them here so there won't be overlap. Thanks, Legitimus (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Terry J. Powell - AFD in progress
• Paul H. Lemmen - AFD in progress
• Lisa Jane Phillips
• George Dupre
• Alan Mcilwraith
• James Shortt

There's also this list page which seems questionable.

Thanks for taking this on. You might want to add the AfDs to the relevant deletion sorting list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. I agree that in most instances these articles will violate WP:ONEEVENT, even when there's detailed sourcing (some of the people who investigate imposters go to great lengths to detail this in written accounts). Given that military imposters often have significant health issues which explains their conduct, there should be a strong bias towards deleting articles on them on privacy grounds IMO. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect members of the project may be amused by this guide to "Walting With Confidence" (if they haven't seen it already). —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about George Dupre now. He is deceased, and not only was a book written about his bogus exploits, but he has been featured in subsequent books detailing his deception. This merely makes him more interesting than the others, but I would not oppose deletion anyway due him again being otherwise unremarkable. Alan Mcilwraith might be harder to get deleted because his deception involved Wikipedia itself and that action was even covered by the press. Previous attempts have been made to delete the article and were unsuccessful, but I'm hoping in the 8 years since then it will be a more rational conversation. Of note is that Mcilwraith seems to very clearly have mental health issues surrounding ego, recognition and attention. Keeping his article is in a way playing right into his hands.Legitimus (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Tajura

Can someone take a look at this orphaned article? Is it worthy of its own article or can it be deleted/redirected somewhere? Could someone more knowledgeable please take a look? Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

set indices and dpages

With the newly implemented class=setindex should some of the {{mil-unit-dis}} (ones that only lists military units) be converted to set indexes ? and pages such as Battle of Fallujah (ones that only list combat/military battles) -- then we could redlink battles missing articles, and units missing articles... I will note that that is how shiplists currently work, with redlinks to missing ship articles. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

British Army "six-year rule"

Historian George Forty states that the 77th Division had "a special role of re-classifying men such as those who had returned from overseas under the six-year rule, returned POW, etc."

I have not been able to find any further information on this, anyone have any ideas what exactly this six-year rule is?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(Should note this is a complete guess). It sounds like this might be a rule stipulating (by later on in the war), that anyone who had been overseas for a total of six years should be automatically returned home. Just a thought to try and help. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have come across references to a similar concept, but it was never defined as a 6 year rule. It comes out in references to priority demobilisation for servicemen who had been overseas since the outbreak of war, and in leave allocations. I think John Ellis The Sharp End and Col. Hickey's The Unforgettable army (an excellent one volume study of the 14th Army) mention it. Irondome (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of it and cannot find anything after a fairly determined Google session, sorry. The Ten Year Rule I know of, but I don't think this is relevant. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/24746-python-lilop-leave/

http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/what-was-python-post-ww2.125299/

PYTHON was the name given to the scheme started after VE Day that concerned repatriation and accumulated leave of regulars who had been serving overseas and also demobilization of overseas non-regulars, plus leave entitlement.. The favourite item of conversation in messes and canteens was one's PYTHON number. This number was based on a points system with points allowed for total length of service and the length of time one had been overseas. Points were also given for decorations awarded and for married men with children under 18. years of age.

LILOP was another scheme, it stood for Leave In Lieu Of Python. This was popular with regulars who were entitled to repatriation according to their Python number but who volunteered to be sent overseas again.

LIAP was a third scheme which was Leave In Addition to Python. I applied for LIAP when I was in the Arakan and had been 4 1/2 years overseas. I flew back to UK in a Dakota from Rangoon or perhaps Calcutta and landed at an RAF airfield in Somerset. I have no memories at all of this flight. I had 14 days leave and then I reported to the RE Depot Bn at Halifax. After about a week spent in drinking beer in pubs and chasing congenial nurses I boarded a troopship that arrived in Bombay three days after the Hiroshima bomb went off. Hurrah! - a free bottle of beer for all on board.Keith-264 (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

For personnel in the Far East, Python was set at 3 years 8 months. On 8 June 1945, the Secretary of State for War reduced it to 3 years 4 months. Servicemen were repatriated without waiting for reinforcements to arrive to replace them, although due to the difficulties involved in transportation in the Far East, not everyone could be guaranteed a quick trip home. This had the effect of disrupting plans for Zipper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember reading references to these programs a few years ago, although i never found out more (until today). With these programs becoming active during '44, would it be reasonable to guess that is the role Forty was referring to for the 77th (which disbanded in September '44, and was replaced by a similar holding division)? This gives me something to search for, although my earlier brief searches found very little on the division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the role of the 77th and PYTHON and it's variants were two completely different schemes. User:Keith-264 who had actual experience of being involved (Respect Keith!} mentions above being merely reallocated to a normal functioning RE depot in Yorkshire. PYTHON is definitely mentioned explicitly in the sources I have mentioned above, especially with regard to the 14th Army in Burma and appears to have been a far more nuanced and large scheme than a mere holding Div could handle. I have no idea what Forty is referring to. I think researching the 77th would be a blind ally on this. Just a hunch. Irondome (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually the passage I added was pasted from another site, apologies for misleading. My military service was a youthful peccadillo of a somewhat inglorious 28 days in 1981. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

AHH! Sorry Keith, my fault, I should have followed the links instead of just plowing on! Duhh! Cheers mate. Simon aka Irondome (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that the way the schemes were soldiers with lengthy overseas service worked was that the soldiers were entitled to a lengthy period of home leave, but were then liable for further service. POWs could also be compelled to serve again. Units would have been needed to process these men after they returned to active duty and assess were they could best be used, especially given that both the British Army and British economy were very short of manpower and the soldiers' skills and health would have often have been quite different to when they were originally posted overseas, and this is a logical role to assign to the depot divisions. It might be worth seeing if the volumes of the British official history which discuss economics and the use of labour mention the topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Korean question

Would Draft:US aerial bombardment of North Korea merit a separate article or be better suited for Korean_War#Aerial_warfare? Thanks for your help, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Couple of notes to consider:

• I would tone down the language a little. It's too hyperbolic and conversational. "Leveled" the peninsula, "massive" hydro electric facility. The bombing did not in fact level the peninsula. There are still large mountainous areas. While it is technically literally a massive facility (as opposed to one constructed out of massless photons), massive is a euphemism for large. An encyclopedia should use the word, not the euphemism. Wording like this is sprinkled throughout.
• It's absolutely ok to use hyperbolic language like "veritable mass productions of death", as long as they are quotes attributed to a WP:RS. The hyperbole should not be "said" by Wikipedia.
• Take out statements of opinion that exceed the bare facts. "However, the American campaign quickly exceeded the strategic; US leaders intended on crushing North Koreans’ morale." Well, the thing is...that doesn't actually exceed strategic bombing. That is precisely what strategic bombing is. Demoralizing the enemy and inspiring public outcry to end hostilities is kindof the point.
• This is also seen in "As such, they leveled non-strategic targets such as schools, hospitals, agricultural land, and later the dams that provided power and water to the country". All of these targets have strategic value if the strategy is to destroy infrastructure and morale, which again, is exactly the strategy.
• Simply put (and this seems to be an overarching premise of the article, and should be excised), strategic bombing in Korea was not quintessentially or qualitatively different than strategic bombing in other wars. WWII was worse than WWI. Korea was worse than WWII. Vietnam was worse than Korea. What you are seeing here is the progression of technology. The basic nature of morale bombing (if it's you) or terror bombing (if it's the enemy), has been the same ever since the first blimp dropped hand grenades on London. We just got "better" at it.
• Consider a name change to Strategic bombing during the Korean War. Aerial bombardment is a very 19th century term (see wording at the Hague Conference). The modern military term is Strategic Bombing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems that you are not the author of this article. I will post my previous comment on the talk page for the draft. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

PSA: Vote and make your voice heard

Hi all, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people could make some very significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost's 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I just voted - the procedure is certainly painless, and I learned a fair bit about the role of the Wikimedia Foundation and hot issues across different Wikimedia projects. Thanks for the note Ed. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem—thanks for voting! Perhaps after this election's (hopefully) high participation we'll all be listened to. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Input from project solicited for RM Construction battalion (disambiguation)

Member of this project are invited to participate in a requested move discussion that would benefit from this project's knowledge at: Talk:Construction battalion (disambiguation) --Mike Cline (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Mutiny on the Bounty peer review

This is just a note to let members of the project know that the important article Mutiny on the Bounty, on which Brianboulton and I have been working over the past month or so, is now up at peer review here, with a view to going to FAC afterwards. All comments welcome. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

removing disambiguators

FYI, a bunch of military units have been requested at WP:Requested moves to have their disambiguators removed speedily

• 2nd Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 2nd Mounted Brigade
• 4th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 3rd Mounted Brigade
• 17th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 17th Mounted Brigade
• 18th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 18th Mounted Brigade
• 19th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 19th Mounted Brigade
• 20th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 20th Mounted Brigade
• 21st Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 21st Mounted Brigade

If this hasn't been already processed, they will show up in a listing at WP:RMTR from this [10] request -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This was done without reference to WP:MILMOS#UNITNAMES. They were technically moved, but I believe that was done incorrectly. In some cases, there are Canadian formations with the same title, and in others, the formation actually had another name for the last two years of the war (often as a Cyclist Brigade). Not sure what the requester thought they were doing, but someone who is interested in British Home Army formations of WWI should probably check them all. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

For the units where a Canadian unit shares the same name, a new WP:RMTR can be requested to revert the speedy change on the basis of there being other units sharing the same name. (or someone could just press the move button) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the MILMOS, these should be at their last name, usually a Cyclist Brigade. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you didn't do mass technical moves when they might well be controversial. RM is the way to do it. That ensures the community has a good look at it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You'd need to ping the person who requested the technical moves for them to read that. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the requester thought they were doing

I requested the removal of the disambiguators in the honest belief that they were redundant. It has since been pointed out Talk:4th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) by @Peacemaker67: that this was a mistake and I accept this. I note the recommendations in the style guide WP:MILMOS#UNITNAMES In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces. I did not reasonably expect another 2nd, 4th, 17th, ... Mounted Brigade. A google search did not show up anything, though in fairness, I did not think to search for Canadian "4th Mounted Brigade".

As to renaming the articles to nth Cyclist Brigade - that has other issues that I am happy to discuss with Peacemaker67. Hamish59 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as blunt. People do say that about me. I'll talk to Hamish about some options. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Military bases, facilities, or installations

The consensus of the editors at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_11#Category:Military_facilities_of_the_United_States_in_Germany was to speedy large numbers of category changes from 'military facility'/'military base' to the 2010 recommendation of 'military installation.' The 2010 discussion was at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_12#Military_bases_and_facilities, and there I requested that all the subcategories be moved as well. Some were (eg Category:Military installations by country), and some weren't. To do the remainder, I wrote a series of CfD Speedies. I tried to do this, but @Armbrust: consistently opposed every CfD Speedy that I've raised, on the basis that some of the subcategories mostly use the base or facility term. But the entire focus of my listings has been to standardize the entire category to the 2010 recommendation of 'installation.' I'm quite frustrated with this, and thus I have raised the matter here. I have invited Armbrust to put his point of view, because I cannot fully understand his reasoning at present. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Caliber nomenclature

How are larger calibers denoted? Is it "40mm grenade" or "40 mm grenade"? Also, is it "100mm gun" or "100 mm gun"? (This is a continuation of a discussion here). Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:MEASUREMENT. ie there is a space between. But if you use convert templates, they will do that for you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I have some self-reverts to perform. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

So does that apply to smaller calibers too? ("a 5.56mm rifle" or a "5.56 mm rifle"?) Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although it gets a little more complicated if you're not abbreviating the unit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)#Requested move 17 May 2015

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)#Requested move 17 May 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

OK I managed to add myself to the main list fine, but the Task Force itself not so much... Haha!

--Luis Santos24 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Widespread sockpuppet disruption - Falklands War, Italian World War II topics, Greco-Italian War, Battle of Crete, Battle of Greece, and Malayan Campaign

The fol SPI case (now closed) highlights the existence of widespread sockpuppet disruption across a range of areas including the Falklands War, Italian related World War II topics, Greco-Italian War, Battle of Crete, Battle of Greece, Battle of Dunkirk, and the Malayan Campaign (especially the Battle of Singapore), and others - pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TimSala/Archive. These accounts have been in use at various different times mostly in the last few years although some date back to 2010, indicating that much of this disruption is now unlikely to be able to be undone. Perhaps more disturbing is the likelihood of there being other accounts (and possibly new ones). The main accounts confirmed (and blocked) are listed below (there were also a number of stale users and IPs that couldn't be confirmed but were likely and have also be tagged but not listed below):

• User:Elguapo365
• User:TimSala
• User:Uhohrazamatazz
• User:100menonmars
• User:Makesenseofit
• User:Simplejack365
• User:Miroslavlokar
• User:Dancesthewaltz
• User:Oldsamsir
• User:EmilioSnell
• User:Dontspeakloudly
• User:Beepbeepfashion

I hesitate to just undo all their edits (where that is even possible) as some appear to be helpful; however, given there is obviously several agendas being advanced here there are definite POV concerns as well. Is anyone interested in assisting to review the contributions of these (now blocked) editors and attempting to deal with any issues that become apparent? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at 100menonmars, I remember them, and they definitely crossed over into my area of expertise. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Me too, there seems to be some mischief on the Operation Compass page.Keith-264 (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Great work in uncovering this problem Anotherclown. The cleanup task is obviously now non-trivial... Are there any particular articles which you think should be priorities? Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Keith-264:, @Farawayman:, @Rich Farmbrough:, @GraemeLeggett: and @EnigmaMcmxc: - FYI I think some of these guys may have edited in areas which you have some knowledge in also. Any chance you might also be able to look over some of their edits too pls? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Also if editors working in these areas could also be on the look out for the reappearance of this editor (under a new name of cse) that would be appreciated. They have a fairly distinct style (as per the SPI) so should be fairly easy to spot unless they change their habits (obviously a distinct risk now due to the evidence presented at the SPI though I'd think). Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

List of articles affected

17th Infantry Division Pavia Done
25th Infantry Division Bologna in progress
27th Infantry Division Brescia
60th Infantry Division Sabratha
101st Motorised Division Trieste
102nd Motorised Division Trento
131st Armoured Division Centauro Done
132nd Armoured Division Ariete
133rd Armoured Division Littorio
185th Airborne Division Folgore
Second Battle of El Alamein
Battle of Goose Green Done
Battle of Mount Tumbledown Definitely needs editing and removal of some text inserted by this user (some edits valid and to be retained). Must however be done manually as undo does not work because of intermediate edits! Will do in coming days
5th Naval Infantry Battalion (Argentina)
H. Jones Done
Mario Benjamín Menéndez
Battle of Dunkirk  Done
Dunkirk evacuation  Done
602 Commando Company
Battle of Wireless Ridge
Battle of Mount Longdon
Falklands War Done
Invasion of South Georgia Done
British invasions of the Río de la Plata
Assault on Mount Kent, Falkland Islands
Sea Cat  Done badly referenced material removed
Pedro Giachino
1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands
Battle of Two Sisters  Done
25th Infantry Regiment (Argentina)  Done dubious material removed

Battle of Mount Harriet
Raid on Pebble Island  Done - no issue I could see here
Argentine ground forces in the Falklands War Done
British war crimes Done mostly already reverted, what's left is no worse than the rest of the article
Argentine Navy  Done recent edits, all reverted
Battle of Greece
Battle of Crete Done needs a spring clean, citations and decision about trivial sections
Battle of Singapore Done
Operation Compass Done
Siege of Tobruk Done
HMAS Nestor (G02) Done
Siege of Giarabub Done
Tunisia Campaign Done
Corpo Aereo Italiano Done
Allied invasion of Sicily Done
Greco-Italian War Done
Operation Brevity Done
Operation Battleaxe Done
Operation Agreement Done
Battle of Sedjenane Done
HMS Sikh (F82) Done
Battle of Medenine Done
Battle of El Guettar Done
Battle of Wadi Akarit Done
Run for Tunis Done
British airborne operations in North Africa Done
2nd Mountain Infantry Division Sforzesca
Italian war crimes  Done

3rd Mountain Infantry Division Ravenna
Anti-Italianism Done - sock's edits here don't appear disruptive
2nd Alpine Division Tridentina  Done
Operation Crusader
Battle of Stalingrad
Battle of Alam el Halfa Done
5th Infantry Division Cosseria  Done badly refed material removed
4th Alpine Division Cuneense  Done
52nd Motorised Division Torino  Done - badly refed material removed
9th Motorised Division Pasubio  Done - material not supported by ref removed
Battle of Kasserine Pass Done
Battle of Muar  Done
Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–90)
Chilean Army
Revolutionary Left Movement (Chile)
Field punishment  Done - info added by sock appears relevant and reliable at least
Battle of the Little Bighorn  Done - additions look to have been removed soon after they were made
Henri Charrière
Martín Balza
Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front
1973 Chilean coup d'état
Falintil
Jorge Rafael Videla
Dirty War

I think this is most of them. Some are far more affected than others (and some of the edits date back years so have probably been written over / changed over time) - Anyway I will attempt to prioritize them shortly. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Gee, you weren't joking about this person having an axe to grind. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this so far. I'm done for the evening now so will have to come back to this tomorrow. If others are interested in assisting, once you have checked / fixed an article pls mark it as done and I'll try and get to whats left. Unfortunately though some articles really look like the edits are so far ingrained that it may take an expert to review them. Not too many of them around either. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

While I have conversed with this editor, if memory serves, Operation Brevity is the only article that we crossed paths editing. His edits were verified and integrated into the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

With regard to articles dealing with the Italian war effort, such as the Italian-Greek War and North Africa, etc, there is a deeper malaise here. Perhaps certain editors are so frustrated by being blocked, they are resorting to these tactics. If you really want to get to the root of the problem, then perhaps a bit of soul-searching and asking the hard questions about what is wrong with many of the articles dealing with the Italian war effort. Until some hard questions are asked, the problem of sockpuppet disruption will not go away. AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked at one article, which is a mess anyway, and most of the sock edits had been reverted by ClueBot.

I realised when looking at Compass that I had copied a version into a sandbox, in the hope that the mass of trivia being added would stop and I could put it back. As for Annales' point, the Italians are often a bit anonymous in Anglophone writing, like the Canadians in Normandy but it's not easy to find decent sources in English that aren't extortionately expensive.... unless someone knows better?Keith-264 (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The British, Kiwi, and Oz OH seem a sound starting point. I used them to ref the 70 Div article in regard to Tobruk and they seemed quite balanced and fair avoiding stereotypes and slander.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've got them but it's the IOH I want....Keith-264 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, that would be a real boon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a look at Invasion of Sicily and Battle of Kasserine Pass, and there has been substantial editing by 100menonmars, all of it glorifying the Italian contributions. What's the call on this stuff? GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. At the very least the massive block quotes in the notes are excessive so I'd remove those in their entirety simply on that basis alone. (This seems to common for many of this editor and their sock's contributions, with lengthy quotes often detailing / highlighting quite minor episodes in an unencylopeadic manner.) Depending on the quality of the sourcing we might keep some of the other material (although I think Lulu is self published so maybe we might need to be careful keeping that too). Anotherclown (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm dealing with the Italian military formations. Just done the 17th. A strange thing about the blockquotes. They are screamingly out of synth with the information given in mainspace! I am increasingly leaving the blockquotes but rewriting the supporting mainspace narrative so they support what the sources actually report. Amazing. To me it just shows a sign of deep insecurity. Here, 3 hour stands are turned into stunning victories. Sorry, but that is just a halfway decent unit earning it's rations. Will crack on Irondome (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Made a start on Battle of GreeceKeith-264 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

3rd opinion at Operation Eagle Claw

Should the Iranian Commanders be listed in the Combat Infobox even though there was no direct combat between US and Iranian forces during the Iranian hostage rescue mission? Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Date format for articles on US military personnel

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel? for a discussion on which date format should be preferred for articles on US military personnel. —sroc 💬 09:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeating/appending-RFC on No Gun Ri

Request for Comment on No Gun Ri

Hi to all,

Once more, I am requesting a review of No Gun Ri Massacre, in part due to the intense feuding and debate over sources that has transpired on that page. If anyone were to volunteer, I would be very grateful.

Thanks,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, would welcome a peer review of No Gun Ri Massacre, in hopes the reviewers will prove to be intelligent, unbiased one way or the other about the U.S. military (and about Asian people), willing to put in the time necessary to understand the No Gun Ri story and the article (including reading the Talk archives back to August 2013, as GeneralizationsAreBad apparently has done), and cognizant of the fact that they themselves should independently review authoritative, professional sources on the subject.

Over the past 21 months, the article has become an example of the worst of Wikipedia. A single angry POV pusher, profoundly ignorant of the subject, has been allowed to make no less than 124 edits in a furious effort to minimize and excuse the mass killing of South Korean refugees by the U.S. military in 1950, a bloodbath confirmed by two governments and whose basic facts are enshrined in a museum and 33-acre memorial park at the site. While loading the article with countless falsehoods and purging it of crucial facts, he also turned it into an often incomprehensible mess.

The journalists and academics who know the subject well became disgusted long ago with a system that allows one deeply biased "editor" to revert, without discussion or explanation, every effort to restore established, well-sourced and important facts to the article, facts he killed out earlier. Appeals to WP administrators for help simply led to being sent from one forum to another, with admins either ignoring the appeals or saying they weren't up to dealing with this serious problem. Those of us who are expert on No Gun Ri then decided to let the article fester. This POV pusher's juvenile bullying approach to WP has antagonized and drawn disapproval from dozens of contributors elsewhere. (He has great interest in the subject of guns, and in some imagined threat to the white race called Cultural Marxism). Perhaps the WP community would catch up with him, it was thought. This all is a sad commentary on WP's failures -- thus far.

I will shortly post separately at Talk: No Gun Ri Massacre, under the heading READER BEWARE, a litany, with diffs, of the incredible run of blanket reverts WeldNeck made over just one period of a few days to kill any effort to restore integrity and truthfulness to the article. I strongly urge all interested parties to study it. You'll see that in his frenzy he even attacks simple efforts to restore sense and syntax to the gibberish. (Whoops, just in: Sorry, but WeldNeck has now unilaterally deleted the posting at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre that listed the serial reverts and serious problems he has created with that article. Let's see what we can do.)

If appropriate disclipinary action isn't taken in this case, our hope is that peer reviewers with open eyes and clear heads, who background themselves adequately, might get this editor to calm down and face the facts of history. Many thanks. Charles J. Hanley 13:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)

Diagrams of naval engagements?

Hello, is someone in this project skilled in drawing battle time lines? I was thinking that instead of something like this, the progression of both parties could be detailed in separate boxes until they clash. I have a diagram of the battle, but it comes from a copyrighted book, which is the reason why we need to handle it differently. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Proposed Supercarriers

An RFC has been posted at Talk:Supercarrier on whether to add a section, Proposed Supercarriers to the article [[[Supercarrier]]]. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Move Request

Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 25 May 2015

The above move request may be of interest to this group. WCM_email 22:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Describing gun size...

...can anyone remind me where the guidance is on the formatting of gun sizes (e.g. how we format a "9 lb gun", a "75 mm gun")? They don't normally make an appearance in my medieval work and I can't find the relevant pages! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there two "Wilhelm Brandt" tank warfare officers (Chaco War and WWII) or same person?

I wanted to work up a stub on Wilhelm Brandt, who was a tank commander for the Bolivian army during the Chaco War. But looking up that name, I'm finding a Wilhelm Brandt who wrote about armored warfare in the 1920s, and during/before WWII desiged Waffen SS camouflage. I'm unable to suss out whether in between those phases he was mucking around in Bolivia, or whether these are two different people of similar name who both happen to be involved with tanks. Any input? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: or @23 editor: this is a bit out of your normal topic area, but maybe you'll be able to help? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Not me, but maybe @MisterBee1966:. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

sorry, I have no clue MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

They were one and the same person. The Germans had a military mission to Bolivia, which allowed them to play with tanks outside the Treaty of Versailles. Apparently he talks about his experiences in Bolivia in his books. [11] Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Added some background data on Brandt to the article. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for your help! I've been meaning to write an article on that guy for like 5 years since I saw passing mention of the names of a few foreign tank instructors in the Chaco War in an Osprey Book. A few colorful characters drifted down for that one... This project always has some amazing experts emerging for the nichest questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917)

Mines in the Battle of Messines (1917) Does anyone know what I have to do to make the collapsing table collapse rather than open automatically and have to be shut? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Found it....Keith-264 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Argentine dictator - copy editing request

Hello, Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the most famous Argentines in History, having ruled with an iron grip his home country for decades and engaged in several wars, including with the Empire of Brazil. The article is full ready to be nominated for FA, but I need to be sure that the writing is great. Is someone skilled at copy editing willing to take a look at the article? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"4.5th generation" ?

Why are we adding the "th" after "4.5"? It's not as if we are pronouncing it "four point fifth", (which would actually be written as "4.2"). It's silly, needless and doesn't make sense. It should simply be "4.5 generation". As in, between the "fourth (4th) generation" and "fifth (5th) generation", is the "four point five (4.5) generation". Can we drop the "th"? - ^theWOLFchild 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The linked article uses "4.5th" for two specific usages of the term, one describing what language the US Government uses and the other in relation to a specific aircraft. So unless these statements in the article are incorrect, I see no reason to change them. (However, one has no citation, the other - which puts 4.5th in quotes - is cited to a dead link. Fifth-generation jet fighter uses it four times without citation. So, what the actual usage is in the context being used (and Google brings up both results) should be what is preferred in Wikipedia articles. I'm not as certain as you that "we" wouldn't say "four point fifth", but would think Americans would be more likely than Commonwealth citizens to use that term. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, who cares who else uses it? (sources, government, aerospace industry, etc.) If it's wrong, and silly, I see no need to follow suit. I'm sure we, as a project, can use our collective intelligence to say "hey, this should be 4.5, not 4.5th". And who cares how what usage is "more likely" between Americans and the Commonwealth? There's "right" and there's "wrong". - ^theWOLFchild 02:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger

Looking to discuss the possible merging of both Queen's Rangers and King's Rangers into Roger's Rangers as a single, comprehensive article. Thoughts? - ^theWOLFchild 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It would seem to be appropriate to merge Queen's Rangers, but unless the King's Rangers article can be expanded from its current content, I would question the unit's notability. I could envision its content in an explanatory note stating Rogers formed another unit after departing the Queen's Rangers. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism on USS Arizona article

I've repeatedly reverted a change to the year that the battleship USS Arizona (BB-39) was struck that is being made by ‎new user Tiger-Man101 (talk), but still he persists. Last time I looked, it was the single edit made by him, so I'm fairly confident that it just tenacious vandalism. I've posted to his talk page without response, so I'll leave it up to an admin to determine the appropriate response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I see Tigerman's blocked. In some hope of bringing him into the fold, I've pointed out on his talk page that the date the user keeps adding isn't even the date that the Japanese struck the ship, so it's more than just understanding what being struck means. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Differences in naming convention

Hi, back in November 2013, I moved a number of Russian submarine articles with the summary "Name comes before hull or pennant number or disambiguation. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Naming articles about military ships." It appears that such a convention applies chiefly to American and British ships, as those that serve in the Russian and Soviet Navies follow a different naming convention, with the name following the pennant number eg "K-141 Kursk". This convention appears to have been adopted by several other navies as well. Should the moves be kept as they are, or should they be reverted? Has there been a significant oversight on my part? Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that for Soviet/Russian submarines, that " K-xxx" is a Pennant or Hull number - its more like an alternative name , with some subs only having a number. For Soviet/Russian SURFACE ships, the pennant number (as painted on the ship's side) would be unsuitable for use as a disambiguator anyway as they were noted as changing very frequently.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Kriegsmarine ships also followed this form of naming. Mjroots (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish and Mjroots: Since some of the submarines have no names but are only given numbers, perhaps my moves should be reverted then? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sp33dyphil: It would seem so, but a note also needs to be made at WP:NC-S to ensure this situation is covered. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with Operation Sahayogi Haat, Nepal Earthquake relief operation for a DYK?

Hello MilHist, can't finish this worthy stub for a DYK as day job calls. Anyone available to make Operation Sahayogi Haat a DYK? --Djembayz (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

3rd opinion at US Invasion of Panama

An editor misread an article in Newsweek and is now trying to alter the infobox to reflect his contention that the US only had 4,500 troops in Panama and that the only units to participate in the invasion were the units flown in (such as the 82nd). In his version, units already there, such as the 193 Infantry Bde didn't participate. I've provided a considerable amount of reliable sources that refute this, but he has a massive case of WP:IDHT. Conversation is here [12]. Outside observations would be helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Three editors have weighed in on the issue. The discussion is now closed. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Gday all. There now seems to be further discussion about other issues on this page which could probably do with some outside opinions, specifically at Talk:United_States_invasion_of_Panama#3RR. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Is true. I thought we had resolved the original issue when I commented, but issues are ongoing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

New website on the Australian involvement in the Vietnam War

This new website might be of interest to a range of editors - it provides a mapped summary of every Australian Army engagement of the Vietnam War, and is being expanded to cover the Navy and Air Force's engagements. It's a pretty extraordinary resource for anyone with an interest in the nuts and bolts of small unit warfare, and should count as a reliable source given that it's hosted by a university and several members of the team who developed it are academics and/or published authors on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this Nick. I'd heard about Andrew Ross and Bob Hall's 1 ATF Contact Database before so was wondering if / when it might be made available to the public. It should prove quite valuable. Anotherclown (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose one other point to make is that the website currently only includes the actions involving 1 ATF; however, I believe they have plans to add the other Army units (esp 1 RAR BG, AATTV and 1 ALSG) as part of the expansion. Anotherclown (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the case - their future plans are explained here Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review - How make A-class - U.S. Veterans benefits PTSD

Students involved in the Wikipedia Ambassador Program started a very helpful article (IMHO), Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States in 2011. I and others have built on their work since late 2012. The article is now close to A-class, and I hope to submit it to WP:MIL for A-class consideration on 30 JUN 2015 or shortly thereafter.

But first I would love to receive suggestions, feedback, and/or edits from you all. I started a new section on the article's Talk page, What is needed to make this an A-class article?, in which you can offer advice or, if desired, comment on edits you made. On that Talk page I also disclose my potential sources of bias, briefly describe my background, list experts who have reviewed the article and offered suggested changes, and list some of the potential problem areas.

Thank you very much,

Mark D Worthen PsyD 23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work. Perhaps these students can also be pointed towards the article Homeless veterans in the United States, which could use significant amount of work.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. :o) ... Unfortunately, this was a one-semester project for the students (Spring, 2011). It's been mostly me since then, despite my best efforts to recruit new editors. But I know I'm not alone in that regard, as I saw it was a topic of conversation for almost all the WMF candidates. Mark D Worthen PsyD 17:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Mutiny on the Bounty now at FAC

Just a note to let project members know that the article Mutiny on the Bounty is now at FAC here. All comments are welcome. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Featured topic removal candidate: Minas Geraes-class battleship

Hi all, there's a FTCR open at Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Minas Geraes-class battleships/archive1. It's been very kindly re-opened by GamerPro, and I'd appreciate your comments on it. Thank you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Campaignboxes

Does anyone know why my laptop shows campaignboxes open and with no "hide" button?Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mine is doing the same thing and I've seen other people on talk pages complaining. I think they must have "improved" the code or something. Sorry not to be particularly helpful, but it does seem to be a case of "do not adjust your set"... :) —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Cliftonian has the right idea -- I was surprised to find TOC boxes displaying with no "hide" button a little while ago and then they returned as mysteriously as they'd disappeared... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Gremlins, DaveKeith-264 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Any developments?Keith-264 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's back to normal for me now; has been for a couple of days. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Still stuck open.Keith-264 (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Is this really a military history issue or am I just missing the point?Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the contributions, it looks like its been sent to every Wikiproject or subproject with a talk page. -- saberwyn 08:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a fair degree of cross over - for instance, relating to articles on the status of LGBT service personnel or bios of such personnel. I'd suspect that the availability of sources for this topic would be pretty good. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And we should be very appreciative of some of the pioneering work the LGBT project has done, which I understand we essentially adopted. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

problems with no TF template

I've been going through the assessment backlog and found a template problem I don't know how to deal with. First, in the "no task force" area, I'm finding several that have task forces but are still coming up on the no TF list. The common thread in these is that they redirect to another article. for example, Talk:Battle of Girard, Alabama redirects to the talk for the article of Battle of Columbus (1865), and has a TF associated. I suspect that the redirect was created without redirecting the talk page, BUT....I dont know how to fix this. Others: Talk:Middle Tennessee Campaign. Talk:Last Stand Hill. Slowly whittling away on the backlog!  ;) auntieruth (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that a talk page for a redirect should also be a redirect (just like what happens when you move a page -- unless you say no, the talk page becomes a redirect, too). So the MILHIST template on this page should just be replaced with a redirect template. In the case of a talk page with extensive contributions that isn't moved along with its main page, issues with licensing and copyright may occur. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page should go with the article. But once an article is redirected and a new talk page emerges, how are they combined. As I said, I don't know how to fix this. auntieruth (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest simply removing the banner from the talk page of the redirect. There's really no great need for us to have redirects tagged. Kirill ^[talk] 22:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yippee. Finished all 60 of the no task force pages, removed some templates, requested deletion on others, etc. Have left the draft articles as is. Any general instruction on those? auntieruth (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Format question re Military conflict infoboxes

Is there a standard of who is Combatant 1 (left hand side placement) and Combatant 2 (right hand side placement)? Visually speaking, I think we should be consistent, and the battles of the Texas Revolution are disconcerting to me as is.

Mexicans as Combatant 1, on the left side:

Battle of Gonzales - Texian victory

Siege of Béxar - Texian victory

Battle of San Patricio- Mexican victory

Battle of Agua Dulce- Mexican victory

Battle of the Alamo - Mexican victory

Battle of Refugio - Mexican victory

Battle of Coleto - Mexican victory

Battle of San Jacinto - Texian victory

Texians as Combatant 1, on the left side:

Battle of Goliad -Texian victory

Battle of Concepción - Texian victory

Battle of Lipantitlán - Texian victory

Grass Fight - Texian victory

Any thoughts on this? Also pinging Karanacs— Maile (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Good question. It makes sense to me that combatant one might be the victor or the side which initiated the battle, but apparently I wasn't the least bit consistent. Karanacs (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how many you did, but I'm seeing various editors who inserted these over a number of years. Until our recent effort to work on these articles as a whole, probably no one knew, or even thought about, standardization. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

DJ and I struggle with this on the articles on the War of the First Coalition. We have yet to resolve it. One of the things that would be definitely true about this is the spelling of Texan. auntieruth (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So, I gather this project has no real firm policy on this. Texian is when writing about that time and place. It's what they called themselves. Texan is the correct spelling after the 1845 annexation. In earlier years, there were long talk page threads debating on whether or not to be true to the time and place by using that spelling. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a question of honour or honor, but a question of recognizability. Would you use Tejanos? Or Texicans? You might include a note about this in each article...no problem with that. auntieruth (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Tejano are about a specific group of people, it is an ethnicity unto itself, just as much as Cajun is. It is not a term that is used for all from the Republic of Texas or the present state of Texas.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Which war

Which war would have affected the Nord department of France in 1616? Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The only war I can think of that would fit the timeline would be the abortive revolt that was ended by the Treaty of Loudun, but I'm not sure whether the north of France was involved in that to any great degree. Kirill ^[talk] 21:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a long way from Nord. Maybe the incident I'm thinking of was a minor dispute between two noblemen and their supporters. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't the region have a different name then, Picardy, Artois, Flanders? Keith-264 (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Probably, but not Picardy. Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't the region have been under Spanish control at the time? 1616 would have been during the Twelve Years' Truce in the middle of the 80 Years' War. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Parsecboy is probably right on this. MJroots, what is the context of your question? auntieruth (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: The destruction of a windmill. Source is in French - En 1616, le moulin de Vertain est incendié par fait de guerre. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft help please

Please can someone have a look at Draft:The Pleime Campaign about a Vietnam War campaign? Way beyond my scope of knowledge, so not sure if it should be accepted or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a summary of the Battle of Ia Drang - don't know if we need two articles (and also considering there's one for the Siege of Plei Me). It's also worth pointing out that the editor who submitted it has since added much of the same material to the Ia Drang article (see for instance in these edits). Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I've rejected it as duplicating Battle of Ia Drang, as most of that draft text has been added there instead. Thanks for your help. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is my reason why Wikipedia needs to create a separate article for The Pleime Campaign: the Battle of Ia Drang (the official military name is Battle of Chu Pong) and the Siege of Plei Me are two of the three battles in the Pleime Campaign (the third one is Battle of Ia Drang). The chronological order is: the Siege of Plei Me (19-26 Oct 1965), the Battle of Chu Pong (27 Oct-18 Nov 1965) and the Battle of Ia Drang (18-26 Nov 1965). It was while editing the background sections of the Battle of Ia Drang and the Siege of Plei Me that I saw the necessity for creating a separate article for the Pleime Campaign. It is a disservice to the Pleime Campaign - the Main battle - to have to be redirected to its two secondary components - the Battle of Ia Drang and the Siege of Plei Me. Should it not be the other way around? In such case it would be necessary to expand the sections dealing with the Siege of Plei Me and the Battle of Ia Drang in the article The Pleime Campaign.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

By Parsecboy thinking that the Draft/The Pleime Campaign appears to be a summary of the Battle of Ia Drang is a strong argument for the creation of a separate article for the Pleime Campaign: readers would err in the same way.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of Ia Drang - which occurred in phase 2 of the Pleime Campaign - lasted only 4 days (14-18 Nov), while the Pleime Campaign lasted 38 days (19 Oct-26 Nov) and ended 8 days beyond the Battle of Ia Drang with phase 3 (18-26 Nov). It is therefore irrational to redirect the whole (the Pleime Campaign) to one of its parts (the Battle of Ia Drang). It should be the other way around.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Battle_of_the_Isefjorden

I've gone through all the articles in the "needs task force" section. This one Draft:Battle_of_the_Isefjorden should be soon accepted, I think, but it needs some attention from someone in this project for citations, etc. I'm not informed enough on sources and situation. Would one of you take a look? auntieruth (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Accepted at AFC and now at Battle of Isefjord, it needs attention particularly to improve the referencing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves

Three requested move discussions which concern this project have been started. They can be found at:

• Talk:SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt#Requested move 2 June 2015
• Talk:Schutzstaffel#Requested move 5 June 2015
• Talk:Sturmabteilung#Requested move 5 June 2015

BMK (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Types of armour

The naming and topic of {{Types of armour}} is under discussion, see Template talk:Types of armour -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Avro Vulcan XH558#Does this article need a Background section?

Please comment at the link above (it's self-explanatory as to what it's about). Natural Ratio (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Google urls

Is there a wiki view about adding them to book references? If they are to be added, is there an abbreviated version of the url?Keith-264 (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Keith, you only need to use the first part of the string up to and including the "id=rlX4rT-GGtEC" bit. See the url's in the references on August Meyszner. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks P67.Keith-264 (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I also should have said that they are generally only added when you can see the book on preview, not snippet or less. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That's better, they seem a bit bogus to me, not that my disdain for Google is involved....Keith-264 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

MGM-31 Pershing

I have been working on MGM-31 Pershing. The article is getting long and the Pershing II section will get longer. Should this be split into three articles and if so, what names would be used? Looking at how other missile articles use designations, I can see that this will not work for Pershing. The problem is that Pershing used MGM-31A to refer to the missile only, where Pershing I was the MGM-31A on the M474 carrier and Pershing IA was the MGM-31A on the M790 launcher. As best I can tell from military documentation, Pershing II never used a designation; MGM-31B is used on some sites and MGM-31C on others, but I can't find any definitive sources. --21lima (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd fork the article into two daughters, not three. MGM-31A Pershing I and MGM-31B/C Pershing II. The Pershing IA should be lumped in with the first of these as it used the exact same missile as the vanilla I. I'm a little surprised at the confusion in your sources on the Pershing II as DoD is usually very precise about letter suffixes for missiles, so there must be some (significant?) difference between them that you'll need to figure out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a good thought on PI and PIA, but if I understand the process, we would fork PII to a separate article leaving PI and PIA.

The PII missile was a entire new system that used a modified and redesignated PIA launcher. The PII launcher, vehicles and other equipment used M designations, but not the missile. Yes, it makes no sense for the Army to not use a designation. See:

• Pershing II Weapon System (System Description) (PDF). United States Army. June 1986. § 1-3. TM 9-1425-386-10-1..
• Parsch, Andreas (November 17, 2002). "Martin TM-76/MGM-13/CGM-13 Mace". Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles., where the issue is noted.

--21lima (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The DoD nomenclature system is a mystery wrapped inside an enigma, etc. Generally missiles and electronics get the 3-letter DoD treatment, but service-specific stuff doesn't. So thus the MGM-31 missile and M-series designations for all its ancillary equipment. I read through Parsch's entry on the Pershing (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-31.html) and I'm inclined to agree with him on the A/B/C suffixes for the I/IA/II. Yes, split out the Pershing II into a new article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been going through my old manuals and the box I just received and just can't find any use of an M designator. I have have everything in the Pershing missile bibliography and probably a few more.

I did find the model numbers for the training missile sections, but not for a training missile as a whole. --21lima (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Start this as Draft:Pershing II Weapon System so I can clean it up before moving it. --21lima (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

New articles

I have some drafts that I think are ready to move. Would someone give these a quick check. I'm sure they need a bit more polish, but moving will attract other editors. If there are specific issues, please discuss on the talk page.

• Draft:Pershing II Weapon System (requires edits to MGM-31 Pershing)
• Draft:38th Signal Battalion
• Draft:55th Support Battalion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21lima (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Draft:1st Missile Squadron
• Draft:2nd Missile Squadron
• User:21lima/Pershing missile as a navbox to tie everything together (needs to have the draft prefixes removed)

--21lima (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Falklands War

[13] An editor describing everyone who disagrees with him as "armchair generals", has by his own WP:OR and WP:SYN changed the article on the Falklands War to change the considered view that the British were concerned about the disparity between the small Harrier fleet on two small carriers, compared with the much larger Argentine air force. Instead he is asserting that the British were concerned about the surface threat more than the air threat. He is citing two sentences out of context from one book and claiming the cite supports the change he is making and throwing out the considered analysis of Lawrence Freedman in the Official History of the Falklands War. The actual cite he used stressed the concern over the air threat and the lack of AEW, 180° away from the edit he has made. Would appreciate some input from the learned gentlemen and ladies of MILHIST. WCM_email 20:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Al-Awda

The usage and primary topic of Al-Awda is under discussion, see talk:The Return (guerrilla organization) -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 17, 2015

User:Catalan hasn't edited much for several years, so I'd appreciate it if someone would have a look at this article before it hits the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I took a look over it before selecting it, and my only concern (from what I could see) was the lead should be trimmed a bit. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure. I'm asking because it's been a long time since this one went through any sort of review, so I'm guessing changes will be made before Main Page day, and I'd rather see the changes before I do my thing. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree, definitely. I'm not a subject matter expert, and it's quite likely that there's something I missed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hello? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Chris, I'm no expert in armoured vehicles but I did check one-by-one each edit made since Catalan's last and saw nothing problematic -- it's had little activity since reaching FA so from that perspective it seems safe enough to run. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thx much Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Thanks Ian. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger (2.0)

Looking to discuss the possible merging of both Queen's Rangers and King's Rangers into Roger's Rangers as a single, comprehensive article. Thoughts? - ^theWOLFchild 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It would seem to be appropriate to merge Queen's Rangers, but unless the King's Rangers article can be expanded from its current content, I would question the unit's notability. I could envision its content in an explanatory note stating Rogers formed another unit after departing the Queen's Rangers. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I had suggested it on both the QR and KR talk pages. No response as of yet. I'll now suggest it on the RR talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 16:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"No man's land"

The usage and primary topic of "No man's land"/"No Man's Land" is under discussion, see talk:No man's land -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

R. V. C. Bodley at FAC

R. V. C. Bodley, an A-Class Military history article, has been at FAC since 6 May, though is in need of further comments. All comments on the nomination are welcome. If you comment on the nomination, regardless of whether you support, oppose or make suggestions, I will review any PR, GAN, FAC or A-Class nomination of your choice. See here. Freikorp (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure all I need is one more vote of support in order for this to pass. If you provide a thorough comment at the article either supporting or opposing the nomination (please provide detailed information on what is wrong with it if you oppose) I will review any two PR, GAN, FAC or A-Class nominations of your choice. Freikorp (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

In case you're not aware, the FAC coordinators take a pretty dim view of solicitation for support "votes" and offers of quid pro quo commentary, so I suggest redacting the above -- last time I looked the nom was not in danger of being archived prematurely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I want the article to be as good as possible, hence why quid pro quo are still being offered for opposing comments, as constructive criticism will improve the article. But very well, I will retract the offer. In my defence I waited till the nomination was open for 4 weeks and in the 'older nomination' section before offering quid pro quo; I don't know what else to do to get someone to comment on it, and i've had FAC's archived before purely from a lack of comments. Freikorp (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Actually while i've got your attention, what view do FAC coordinators take of offering either barn stars or monetary rewards at the reward board for comments at FAC? I ask as before you commented here I had just offered a reward there for comments, after noticing someone else doing it as well. Freikorp (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit that, not having the Reward Board on my watchlist, I wasn't aware of anyone offering inducements for reviews. I understand people can feel pretty desperate for comments sometimes, but my preferred methods for attracting reviews are simple, neutrally worded requests on talk pages (project or individuals), or (longer term) to get out there and review others' articles to help build a reputation that may lead to people becoming interesting in reviewing your noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force for Crisis Response

An IP user just jumped in and messed up this page: Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force for Crisis Response

However the hostname of the IP is: gate25-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil

So before I try fighting the USMC (not a good place to be in), shall I try restructuring the page to be on the topic of all of the SPMAGTFCRs, with separate sections inside this page for the different regional ones? Hcobb (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems sensible Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it is being taken over by the African corps, so new plan:

• Retain small mentions in current article of other units and setup redirect from - Africa to current name.
• When new units grow up enough to rate their own articles then create and link to those from here.
• When the concept has been tested for a few years then move current article to - Africa, and replace with discussion on concept and links to the units.

Okay? Hcobb (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Operation Linda Nchi troop strength figures

I would appreciate some expert help in finding troop strength figures for the Operation Linda Nchi article - please see this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

War check

Hello fellow Wikipedians! Could anyone have a look at Draft:Mughal-Rajput War (1558–78)? It seems to discuss the 2nd such War, as opposed to the existing article. Is it a good start? Please advise. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)