Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 146

Archive 140

←

Archive 144

Archive 145

Archive 146

Archive 147

Archive 148

→

Archive 150

RFC: How should Vietnam War casualty figures be presented?

How should Vietnam War casualty figures be presented in Infoboxes and body of pages? In many cases the casualty figures for all combatants are based only on US sources so how should this be presented in a neutral way? Mztourist (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• If only the US figures are presented in reliable independent sources then we use those as the figures stated as fact, as the sources do. Wikipedia reflects the world as independent sources say it to be, not what you "know". Guy (Help!) 08:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• If the only figures available are regarded by WP:RS to be unreliable then the presentation of them in the main body of the article should, I believe, be accompanied by a discussion of their unreliability. In these cases I would suggest that, rather than trying to accommodate complexity in an infobox that is not designed to handle it, we do not include casualty figures, but instead link to the section in the article that discusses them. If there are differing figures from partisan sources, we might consider representing this as a range, accompanied by a link to the section in the article that discusses them. See Battle of Ia Drang for an example. User:A bicyclette has a valid point in insisting on flagging the unreliability of the figures where this has been recognised in the sources, but we should not be trying to handle this in the infobox. Perhaps we could come up with some boilerplate text that can be added to the main body of the relevant articles which explains the issues? Factotem (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to adopt the range as it can become meaningless, see for example Operation Junction City where the US lost 282 killed, while the PAVN/VC claim 13,500 US/ARVN killed. I just don't see how a range of 282-13,500 is informative.Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• In the case of Junction City the PAVN claim should be attributed as propaganda, given that that would be half of the forces in the operation, and 800 armored vehicles presumes a loss of almost all the US vehicles involved. This is a similar situation to crediting a Japanese casualty claim for Leyte Gulf (at least in this specific case). I looked at the source mentioned and [1] Woodruff (author) states that the PAVN claim for Junction City is "far fetched", and quotes the US claim of their own casualties without attribution. How can we place this PAVN figure on par with the US' own casualty reports if WP:RS do not describe it as reliable? Kges1901 (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest using "See Casualties section" in the infobox, and creating a stand-alone Casualties section in each article to discuss the various figures and the issues there are with them. Some standard wording about the inaccuracies inherent in US body counts and Vietnamese government sources etc can then be used in this section of each article to cover these issues. A similar arrangement is sometimes used with the Aftermath field in the infobox. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Factotem and Peacemaker. US military enemy casualty estimates from the Vietnam War are famously unreliable, and the post-War Vietnamese accounts are often also dubious. But that doesn't mean they're unusable. For instance, the Australian official history of the war makes regular use of Vietnamese official histories and accounts as part of its efforts to cover 'the other side of the hill', but comments on when they're dubious. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with a separate casualties section and discussion on each battle page because that would create an excessive emphasis on the issue making it POV. The wikilink to Body count#Vietnam War where the issue is discussed at length should be more than adequate. Where there are competing claims both should be stated as in Battle of Chosin Reservoir. Mztourist (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how it would be POV. Whose POV would it be? If the casualty figures are notoriously inaccurate, then explaining that is taking a NPOV. Casualties are a pretty integral part of any battle, and should be covered, along with the limitations of the available figures. An alternative approach would be using a standard note, but given the ranges used as an example, a separate section seems the go. Even included in an Aftermath section if you don’t want a separate Casualties one. With Yugoslav Partisan/German battles, where overestimates of enemy casualties were also common, often it is best to use each party’s own figures for themselves where available, which are often more accurate than estimates of enemy casualties, treating the latter as claims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Concur with Nick, Peacemaker, and Factotem - we do the best we can with the sources that we have. US/ARVN figures for VC/PAVN casualties were notoriously manipulated on a wide scale - they should be treated with about as much trust as VC/PAVN figures for US/ARVN casualties (i.e., very little). Provide the numbers, explicitly denote them as claims, and use a boilerplate explanation of how (and why) body counts were inflated on a wide scale. As for the infobox, it would probably be best to just say "See casualty section". Infoboxes are not the place for nuance. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• There seems to be a common viewpoint/POV here that US body count figures are completely unreliable. I would like to draw your attention to Body count and Vietnam War casualties and do some simple maths. The US DOD claims 950,765 communist forces killed in Vietnam from 1965 to 1974 (it is stated but unreffed that DOD believes that these figures should probably be discounted by 30%). A "Vietnamese Government" document claims 849,000 military deaths between 1955 to 1975 (obviously this is a slightly different period - the years 1955-1964 saw fighting but not huge casualties while the years 1974-5 saw substantial fighting and casualties, but its unclear if this document includes the 300-330,000 PAVN/VC missing), but even if we discount the Vietnamese figure to 800,000 for the mismatched years that's only an 18% overestimate. If we add 300,000 missing then Vietnamese losses are 1.1m, so US figures underestimated by at least 15%. Rummel gives a mid-estimate of 1,062,000 and a high estimate of 1,489,000, so using those figures the US underestimated by 11% to 56%. We have all read stories about body count inflation etc. but the overall numbers simply don't support claims of complete unreliability. I propose that we adopt the approach used in Battle of Chosin Reservoir but instead of "US sources" we have "US body count" regards Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • They aren't completely unreliable, but they have severe, well-acknowledged weaknesses, which need to be acknowledged in the body of each article to allow readers to reach their own conclusions. As I've explained before, talking about total casualty estimates for 1965-75 or 1955-75 and using those to argue for or against the reliability of individual period casualty estimates after each combat ground engagement isn't linking apples to apples, because the total casualty estimates include many, many instances where ground forces did not face each other, mostly air raids, and because the total casualty estimates are based not on a count-up of body counts, in most cases, but instead on a variety of different estimates which can stray to the lengths of missing demographic cohort counting!! This is why Peacemaker and Nick-D are very much on the right track; a separate casualties section enables acknowledgement and discussion of the various source weaknesses and addition directly of any new data that arises from this point, with a description of how the new estimate came about. Very much endorse a separate casualties section. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Body count described the physical counting of bodies and estimates of PAVN/VC killed, in all engagements including standoff ones (air and artillery strikes) when sending in troops to physically count bodies was usually unfeasible. If they were routinely inflated as some Users here seem to think then the aggregate would always vastly overestimate actual losses, but the overall figures simply don't support that. Where there is WP:RS of body count inflation in a particular battle that should be noted on the page, but including a casualties section on every page discussing the deficiencies of body counts generally pushes a POV of body count unreliability. The whole issue should be centralized on 1 page Body count#Vietnam War where the different accounts and arguments can be laid out in detail and any new data added which will then apply across all pages that wikilink to it. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
      • There's a vast literature, including biographies of people who were involved, which notes that the wartime US body count figures were routinely falsified. As such, those for individual battles need to be treated with great care. Are the Vietnamese official total figures considered accurate by scholars? (it would have been in the regime's interest to minimise its losses). Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
        • To my knowledge the literature on body count is largely individual's experiences and contemporary media reports and none use the actual casualty figures (to the extent those can ever be accurately determined and agreed). Again to my knowledge no reliable book or academic paper has ever been produced that analyses the issue in depth, either in relation to individual battles or the war as a whole using the actual casualty figures. The "Vietnamese Government" document is being discussed at WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties, I agree that it was (and still is) in the Vietnamese Government's interest to try to minimize its losses.Mztourist (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
          • We already discussed this topic on reliable sources [2] here, and in many other places including here [3]. I'll just repost what I posted. Just going to further comment that MZTOURIST is attempting to discredit this source, even though I updated and provided more links, and explained it already. These are not public relations figures, and were sourced from Hanoi's internal military records in relation to a law/decree whereby the remains of the military dead from 1945-1990 are to be identified and recovered. MZTOURIST just believes EVERY SINGLE VIETNAMESE SOURCE is inherently a propaganda piece while not even questioning the straight-up proven propaganda of many US sources on the reliability of US-estimated casualties. Not operating with this a monolithic generalizations either, such as claiming "its the regime's interest to minimize losses" based on nothing is meaningless. They have often appeared to overstate casualties in contrast to demographic/true third-party studies as a counterexample(e.g. claiming 3 million dead in contrast to demographic studies here). [4]
          • The figures that are cited and established were meant for internal usage, not meant for "public relations" or whatever as MZTOURIST continues to believe. The figures from the document, found here [5], specifically here [6], were meant for an internal law searching for war dead from the periods 1945 to 1990. The breakdown is based on which component and sector, and the numbers are generally reliable given that these are compiled from internal sources and official record-keeping from the government of Vietnam. These are far more reliable than third-hand knowledge citing or speculating about what a vietnamese newspaper said as per the AP article. A bicyclette (talk)
• My 2 cents (and generally true regarding any conflict) - if we have reliable estimates by historians (looking at both sides, usually 20-30+ years later) - that's preferred. If all we have are claims by either or both sides - we should state such claims, and clearly attribute them. Such claims are known to vary widely with reality (not only in Vietnam - this is pervasive in war - commanders will almost always overestimate their effectiveness - often by a large multiple) - however they are better than nothing.Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Managing Campaignbox Bloat

There seems to be little in the way of managing the enormous operations bloat that is occurring for this campaign box located at Template:Campaignbox_Vietnam_War. Some operations are relatively minor and obscure, and many follow typically the same pattern of time, date with scant detail from the same set of 1 or 2 sources (typically books summarizing AAR reports for MACV). There are a few operations of placing these "operations" or battles into more managable articles, such as the articles on Con Thien or contextualizing operations behind major battles such as the Battle of Dak To. Another example includes Operation Thayer which summarizes three operations in a geographic area.

For the 1965-1966 period a few examples are here. Most follow a very specific pattern of Date, brief descript of event, casualties -> next date repeat and with many of them occurring over months. The significance of them isn't really all that discussed here so we don't get a sense of importance or impact from them other than X was killed and Y was killed. Here are the examples: Operation Marauder, Operation New York,Operation Cocoa Beach, Operation Lincoln (Vietnam), Operation Oregon, Operation Texas (Vietnam), Operation Birmingham, and Operation Silver City, Operation Jay, Operation Austin IV Operation El Paso, Operation Wahiawa Operation Nathan Hale,Operation John Paul Jones, Operation Macon, Operation Seward, Operation Colorado, Operation Amarillo, Operation Byrd Operation Sunset Beach, Operation Geronimo (Vietnam), Operation Shenandoah

At the same timeframe there are aticles which have more than just a summary of events over a time period, and include more sources and details than 1 or 2 operation summary books, include among them Operation Starlite, Operation Hump, Battle of Xa Cam My, Battle of Hill 488or single battles which had significance such as the Battle of Minh Thanh Road

A bicyclette (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Keeping the articles with substantive details which are relatively minor may be useful, but this campaign box only represents a fraction of all battles and operations in the war. Thoughts? A bicyclette (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As an initial suggestion, how about a campaign box for the bottom of articles? Being page-width, it should at least look more reasonable to the reader. The right-hand box could then be distilled down to the major phases of the war, and perhaps the operations that are already in bold. In terms of implementation, it may be most fruitful to trim down {{Campaignbox Vietnam War}}, create a new template for the operations box (e.g. {{Operations of the Vietnam War}}, and then run a script to add the new one at the bottom of the articles. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've also just re-read your suggestion, and you make a good point about many of the operations likely being too small or lacking in detail to ever expect enough material for an extensive article. What would you recommend as the item around which they are consolidated? Geographical location? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 12:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sasuke Sarutobi, thanks for the suggestion but I wouldn't be sure how to implement it truthfully. I've already started grouping some things by major geographic location and year. I think there's a few parallel parts to group it by, but grouping by geographical location and distinct phases might be useful. E.g. there's a component that's grouped at the DMZ area, there's a component that's grouped just be the Tet Offensive and so-on. There's a few key areas and a few key timephases throughout the conflict as a whole. I'd like to hear other user inputs on this matter. A bicyclette (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, the campaign box only lists significant battles and operations of a long war and it is already segregated timewise. Being one of the major creators of Vietnam war battle pages and also one of the major contributors to the campaign box, I do not envisage that it will expand significantly as I believe that most of the major battles and operations are covered with the possible exception of the 1968-71 period. All Allied operations of the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1975 are listed on the List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1964) and subsequent pages, but nothing important happened on the majority of them so they don't warrant their own pages or inclusion in the Campaign box. If anyone has specific examples of pages that should be condensed/consolidated that needs to be raised on the relevant page(s), not discussed in the abstract here. Mztourist (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Most of the major operations are not covered however, the only operations which are covered are primarily US ones, with one or two sources used (official histories). These cannot be regarded as the "primary" operations only, given the significant lack of sources used by yourself. This also does not cover major battles beyond just US military operations, in a war primarily characterized by minor "skirmishes". A bicyclette (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to write pages about other significant operations based on WP:RS.Mztourist (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is that there are a significant number of operations yet to be added to an already-large template, given its position on the right of the article (a point I certainly agree with). I stand by my recommendation that such an extensive list template belongs at the bottom of articles, but A bicyclette has validly pointed out that this would still only be a part of the solution, as it would not address the wider quality problem of having a large number of short and under-sourced articles (to say nothing of the reader experience of having to navigate such a large number of articles). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 09:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, there's way too many independent and minor operations which really only list date, casualties, minor details here and there for many operations, and not even forgetting they are relatively "minor". They are organized by time-frame instead of geographical locations as well. I'd suggest condensing major ones into blocs the same way Con Thien/Masher/and Thayer,Irving,Thayer II is organized but placing minor ones at the bottom. A bicyclette (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@A bicyclette: What is your neutral and brief question? Remember that what appears at WP:RFC/HIST is copied from the {{rfc}} template down to the next timestamp. In this lot I can't work out what we are being asked to comment on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Daniel A. Dailey and similar articles

A recent AfD deleted an article about the Canadian Army Sgt Major, Alain Guimond. The argument was that he failed GNG as there was only primary sources ie military pages with mentions of him. This argument then should mean that we can delete Daniel A. Dailey and similar articles. Dailey's page has a number of primary sources, including an interview at McCalls. A google search will show that the majority of information from him is gleaned from .mil sites. Most news articles are passing mentions like he visited Fort Drum. If we accept that Canadian army pages are primary sources we can apply this to all the .mil sites surely? Then Dailey would also fail GNG and should be deleted. The AfD also rejected the argument that Guimond merited a page due to his post as Army Sgt Major. Your thoughts? Gbawden (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought his claim to be noteworthy was that he was Sergeant Major of the Army but I would vote for deletion just get rid of the awful medalfest, not sure who thought that was a good idea.. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone went on a rampage adding these medalfests (great name for it) to a large number of military bios a few years back. I argued against it at the time. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I would say yes, if military pages do not establish notability it is the same irrespective of the service or nation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on the delete; I would also posit that there are quite a few others that should be deleted/merged on that basis Graeme Spark being one. Quite of a few of the CASWOs are similarly fed by primary sources. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't really have an opinion either way on keeping or deleting these articles based on sourcing (though as mentioned above, SMA seems noteworthy) But as for these so-called "medelfests" (lists of decorations)... I didn't add them, but I don't see the problem with them. Why are some you so opposed to them? Does this apply to all military bio's? Are you looking for them to be removed outright? Or just added another way? Just curious... - ^theWOLFchild 13:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I´d say that while similarites between articles and their situations can and should be discussed it doesn't mean that an article should be deleted saying that another AfD from another article is reason enough. New article, new AfD case. And by the way the aforementioned short AfD for Alain Guimond is right over here. As far as the medals are concerned I suppose there simply are better and less bulky display options available to be used, like e.g. in this article. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with GEL, different bio, different AfD, and in fact when I come across mil bio's with a list of medals, I usually convert the list to a ribbon board and medal table, like here - ^theWOLFchild 14:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I find the Ribbon Board a ghastly apparation but luckly they seem to be confined to American articles, main objection is they seem to attract listing what are not really noteworthy awards that otherwise would not get mentioned in a list. Perhaps we need to start another discussion on this. MilborneOne (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

US WWI stuff

Archive sheet with photo of the tank "America".

Hi everybody, 42.830 photos from the National Archive have been uploaded to WP:Commos in September 2017. Almost exclusively WW1 material. But not many people seem to have noticed. Since that material is effectively non-existent for wikipedia-work, as long as it has not been categorized - help is needed. I worked through all the files one time, and I think I got most of the material dealing with US army generals, but my computer failed from time to time because it couldn’t take the huge files any more, so I have to assume I missed a lot.

The National Archive people didn’t seem to have censored much - so you will see US casualties, all types of medical exams and treatments, plane accidents on US training fields, pictures of food items, firearms, uniforms, gasmasks, trucks and of almost everything else, acquired by the armed forces. So if you are not scared by an occasional very graphic display of an STD-treatment - help is needed! Alexpl (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I just noted that most of the material at the link given I looked at is from World War II and dated as such. For some reason it's all titled as "World War I Branch - ca. 1918 - ca. 1948". Just thought I'd let people know. RobDuch (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

If you click though the pages of that gallery I linked, you will notice that it is just a few WWII images at the beginnig and the very end of the collection. The last 500 images include images of the US-spanish war, indian wars, vietnam war and WW II. I have no idea what happend there, but some 95% are WWI. Alexpl (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

One of the oddities I found in that archive - The "America" tank. Apparently presented in the US in 1918 for promotional purposes, but I couldnt find anything about it on wikipedia. Alexpl (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It was the prototype of the Steam tank (which never made it into production/service) - Dumelow (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've stuck the image into the "c:category:Steam-powered US experimental tank" and removed the unidentified tag from it - Dumelow (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the tank called "Britannia" mentioned in the text was a British Mk IV Female sent over to the US to show the flag; it was later renamed "Liberty" and is still there. Alansplodge (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

one of many "exotic" trucks.

There are a lot of truck photos in that collection. So US WWI trucks/truckmaker-experts on Wikipedia - I bookmarked a few images which still need to get categorized: Alexpl (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]

[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]

[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]

[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]

[57][58][59][60][61][62][63]

What are the guidelines? For example the men in c:File:111-SC-10265 - Night shift ready for work, Bassens Docks, Bordeaux, France. - NARA - 55180863.jpg are almost certainly assigned to a stevedore regiment or battalion but is that WP:OR?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

NPOV and OR are not a must - see c:Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not Wikipedia. As long as you do not change the information which have been provided by the original uploader, you can add categories (c:Commons:Categories) and also explanatory text to the "General notes" section of a file, with a list of the reasons/sources for your assumption. Or use the discussion page of the file. Alexpl (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Arctic geography question

Does the River Petsamojoki near Petsamo have other names, recognisable on Wiki? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

An internet download about Finnish botanists suggests that the Pechenga River is one and the same. The Russian name for Petsamo is Pechenga (Russian: Пече́нга). Alansplodge (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

See also fi:Petsamonjoki and sr:Печенга (река) which both seem to say that the Russian name is just "Pechenga" without the "River" qualifier. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks see Operation Benedict for the details. Keith-264 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Well done on that Keith-264 and keep up the good work. I have added the Russian and Finnish language names to the Pechenga River article and created a redirect thus: Petsamonjoki. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Most kind of you to say, thanks. I notice that I managed to type it wrong too. The article is nearly ready for a B class review. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Managing Campaign Box For Vietnam War Template

How should we manage and organize/streamline the campaign box for the Vietnam War found here Template:Campaignbox_Vietnam_War?

A few comments that I posted above are here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Managing Campaignbox Bloat A bicyclette (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Military equipment of the European Union

Came across the rather strange article Military equipment of the European Union which lumps together all the military equipment and weapons of member states as if they are available to the EU. As far as I know very few military assests are directly assigned to EU missions so this article appears to be a bit misleading. Adding up all the nuclear weapons under the EU seems like they and other weapons are under the control of eu institutions which seems very unlikely as most are allocated to national or NATO interests. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is giving me flashbacks to the discussions about including an EU tally for the List of countries by military expenditures over a decade ago. Maybe the list could be more useful if refocused to actual military organizations like the Eurocorps, but even that might be of dubious value, since the Eurocorps is largely a paper organization. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The only 'military equipment of the European Union' might be a few communications systems held by the EU Military Staff. This article should be listed for deletion - it's very misleading. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it would be reasonable so long as it makes clear that it is a summary and comparison of EU member states' military equipment, which to my mind would include the page being moved to a title like Military equipment of European Union member states as well as rewriting it to make clear (for example, including a section at the beginning summarising the Common Security and Defence Policy and its limits, as well as perhaps mentioning the Eurocorps per Parsecboy's comment). Absent those sorts of changes, though, I agree that it is beyond misleading. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 09:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Buckshot: the article in its current form implies that EU militaries are lumped together (for instance, that aircraft carriers are jointly controlled), which is not the case at all. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Buckshot on this too. All forces are under national command. Article is misleading and should be deleted Lyndaship (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with above. Article is only a few weeks old. Tag it for deletion. - ^theWOLFchild 13:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, delete. The EU has no command, control or even monetary interest in member states' militaries. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, article has been given a PROD. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong keep Member states' capabilities are highly relevant as the CSDP involves a mutual defence clause. The range of equipment that may be used in 'ordinary' EU operations is also relevant. The European Defence Fund also marks the EU's entry into the domain of facilitating the national aquisition of defence equipment as well as funding defence equipment research. The article makes no secret of the fact that the equipment is owned by the member states: This may be further emphesised however. The name is [...] of the European Union, not [...] owned by the EU. The content is relevant in any case, and if Wikipedians believe the current title is misleading I'd be ok with it being renamed National military equipment of the European Union, Military equipment of European Union member states or something similar. A decade ago I'd support the article's deletion, but the remarkable development of the CSDP recently justifies its existance entirely in my opinion. - Ssolbergj (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless a large section, explaining, in all the harrowing detail, the weaknesses, gaps, and lack of willingness of Member States to forge and sustain common defence interests as regards the CSDP, is added, such an article should unquestionably be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I’ll be glad write this section. - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could be so kind as to move the article -- without a redirect -- to Ssolbergj's userspace until such a section can be written. Perhaps with a link back to this discussion. MPS1992 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please be a little patient. I believe the article is useful for readers and per se correct in its present form also; this is a mere elaboration of the realities of defence integration with regard to equipment and sovereignty. - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we won't be patient. It's terribly misleading, because it misrepresents that sovereignty. Do you have any preferred title you'd like it in in userspace? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military equipment of the European Union after the proposed deletion tag(s) were removed. All the users who have commented at this section are invited to comment at the deletion debate. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have just made [this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Personnel_Recovery_Centre&diff=846205119&oldid=844484888] edit to dissassociate the European Personnel Recovery Centre from association with European Union military activities. The EPRC is a seven-nation organisation with observers that include the United States of America. The idea that an organisation with seven members that has no formal links to the EU, that includes associate U.S. membership, can be listed as "of the European Union" of 29 members is baffling.

I would kindly like to emphasize to Ssolbergj that the EU military arrangements consist of an office building on Kortenberg Street in Brussels, where a large number of seconded Member State officers sit making plans, arrangements for multinational command, which include an operations centre in that building, and pre-agreed arrangements to nominate national operations centres such as Potsdam or Mont Valerian as headquarters for EU missions, several ongoing EU missions, with forces which sit under those missions for the duration of their deployment, and a bunch of cooperative administrative arrangements like OCCAR and PESCO for saving money in military procurement. *Nothing* qualifies as a "EU military unit or formation" except the battlegroups. The categories you have been adding to various European intergovernmental projects would also lead, if left unchanged, to every military organisation that has ever been nominated as available for United Nations activities being listed in a category "Military units and formations of the United Nations" which is farcical. Units are assigned to temporary EU missions for specific limited periods, they come home, and they leave any association with EU control. Please, stop making edits that can make readers assume the EU has any permanent operational military activities beyond the Kortenberg building and its associated missions. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Buckshot on this. The article links several programs that are bi-national or tri-national as if they were creations of some mythical pan European cooperation. Misleading at best if not deceptive.Tirronan (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for MAUD Committee needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for MAUD Committee; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

United States Space Force

FYI: Since the announcement that the president wants a new service there has been an explosion of edits on space articles, which many of you will want to review to make sure that they’re accurate and don’t violate crystal ball or original research. Garuda28 (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Italian to English wiki request

it:File:Battaglia_Convoglio_Espero_1.svg

Does anyone know how to make this work on English wiki pls? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you wanting to just use that image on en.wiki, or are you looking for a translated version? Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a public domain image, transfer it to Commons then any Wiki project can use it. Is that right? — Marcus^(talk) 18:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. But if Keith wants an English translation, I'd suggest asking at the Graphics Lab. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Just the image, the language doesn't matter. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've clicked on the image and tried to get the edit screen to copy the file address but it isn't there.Keith-264 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You mean you need to get out of the media viewer? Try here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Get past the copyright page but its come out as if it's my work so I've left a q at the village pump. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

'Tis done. Keith-264 (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yang Kyoungjong

The sourcing for the article is very poor though. Is it possible this is a hoax or an urban legend? I see sources online that tell the same story, but what if these sources are just repeating what other sources are saying? What is this story ultimately based upon though? Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Martin Morgan in "The Americans on D-Day: A Photographic History of the Normandy Invasion" gives some overview of the issue. He mentions that the photo is real, but that the man is not identified in the original photo. It's only a theory emerging in the 1990's that the man is Yang Kyoungjong, and he speculates he is an unidentified man with a Georgian battallion. Link Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss it in a central place: Talk:Yang Kyoungjong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

MilhistBot update

I am moving the MilhistBot scripts from my server onto the WMF Toolserver. This should help me maintain service when I'm away from home. I'm hoping there won't be any disruption, but the times at which jobs run may change. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Categorisation by rank

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 20#Category:Wing commanders. Should we or should we not categorise military officers by their precise ranks? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Opinion on a source pls

this recent work by naval historian Francesco Mattesini This was put on my talk page [64] which I think is worth exploring but I'm not sure if it was linked by the author. Any foreseeable OR, advertising or RS objections? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It Wiki has [65] a Francesco Mattesini page and it looks like the same bloke

Francesco Mattesini (Arezzo, 14 April 1936) is an Italian historian. He writes for the Historical Office of the Italian Navy (USMMI) and has to his credit various publications with the theme of the war on the sea during the Second World War, both in the Theater of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.

— (my trans)

and Worldcat has quite a few publications in it under that name. Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

My correspondent isn't Mattesini (the one I found on it.wiki etc) but the pdf doesn't appear on Worldcat or have an ISBN Keith-264 (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Are info boxes required or optional?

I'm reviewing some articles at GA and the editor hasn't wanted to put an infobox into the article because it's political. Guidance, please? auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "political", but the best argument that I've seen against infoboxes is that they often duplicate information in the lede. So, no, they're not an absolute requirement, but I'd be very much inclined to require one for things like ships or airplanes where infoboxes cover a lot more detail. Dunno if that helps, but...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed at arbcom a long time ago, with the conclusion that "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Don't believe that that has changed in the interim. Factotem (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Battleship which is FA (and basically just about every weapon/equipment/vehicle class article) doesn't have an infobox. Not every kind of article has the appropriate type of infobox available (repetitive types of articles do - e.g. ship classes do - Iowa-class battleship, or battles, wars, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

For reference, the GA review in question is this one. For what it's worth, I don't know what exactly you'd put in an infobox for that article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it this one? L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Both, apparently ;) Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Auntieruth55, the context is always essential in this kind of questions. I assume you are talking about English invasion of Scotland (1385) or perhaps another article by the same editor; courtesy ping to Serial Number 54129. The use of Infobox is neither required nor prohibited, this is explicitly defined in WP:INFOBOXUSE. It should never be used as a reason to discount the article, unless for example if the lede was poorly written, missing crucial information and does a poor job of summarising article; in this case, a strong argument can be made on why Infobox would complement the article. Alex Shih (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Without being too political on info boxes (and Serial Number 54129 is correct on the politics) - I think that for the invasion an infobox like the on in English invasion of Scotland (1298) would be nice - even if it isn't all filled out. As for the Parliament of 1327 I'm not sure if there is a good infobox (I suspect the one on List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015 wouldn't be a good fit). My 2cents.Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I generally use Infobox for all articles involving battles, but not necessary for campaigns. Reading through English invasion of Scotland (1385), I can understand the rationale for adding/not adding Infobox; the reason for adding has already been stated; the reason for not adding would be in this kind of campaign, the actual combat is relatively minimal, but the political consequence seems to be the main focus. An Infobox in this case can be of undue weight, as the reader will naturally focus on the battle part of the article, which was really inconsequential in terms of numbers. Alex Shih (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is very helpful,folks. I had missed that Arbcom conversation. Yes, I was referring to both Parliament of 1327, which I thought could use an "event" infobox but I didn't hold up the article on it, and English invasion of Scotland 1298. I'll encourage Serial Number 54129 to try to overcome his aversion to them--I do think that even an abbreviated box wouldhelp, especially the former if not the latter. Regardless of how well written these articles are, I find myself looking for the box just to give me a quicker summary than the lead. Who what when where why--for our visual learners out there. auntieruth (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Our B-class criteria require that an article contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. Thus, the addition of an infobox may shift an article from Start class to B class (and its removal from B class to Start class) in the absence of other supporting materials. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ditto Hawkeye, but I'll add that I have a number of FAs/A-Class articles that don't have an infobox German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations and Waterloo Bay massacre for example. Sometimes things are too complex for an infobox and need to rely on the prose in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've always lent more towards infobox usage, but am becoming increasingly convinced by arguments against their drawbacks for information that isn't uncontroversial and/or technical. As many others have stated, they are useful for information like technical details (much of which wouldn't be relevant in the lede), but not a requirement in any case (even the B-class criteria give infoboxes as example of a supporting material, but only an example). I would also venture to add that they can aid the accessibility of an article by summarising details that may be otherwise buried in a large volume of prose, improving the ease of reading (especially for readers at a lower level of English-language literacy, such as less fluent non-native speakers or schoolchildren).

My personal approach in these cases would probably be to look at what information the infobox would summarise, and see if agreement can be reached on including it for that list of details. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 10:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics"

Discussion of a proposed consolidated Weapons of power in Hindu epics article is at Talk:Kurukshetra War#New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics". --Bejnar (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy call

This article doesn't mention military, but isn't there such a thing as a courtesy call by warships, for example? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you find an RS saying this?Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

But then the whole article is unsourced, I am thinking an AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps whatever useful, sourced info there is on "diplomatic courtesy calls" should be added to the already existing article on Diplomacy, by way of merge. (imho) - wolf 13:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

We have an unsourced article on military courtesy, it should be there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Captains of warships sometimes make courtesy calls (eg, on local notables), but I don't think that the ships themselves do. Visits by warships for diplomatic/PR purposes are usually referred to as Showing the flag. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Although commonly used, "showing the flag" is an idiomatic term, I believe. The Royal Navy's protocol for OFFICIAL VISITS, PRECEDENCE AND CEREMONIES says: "The preliminary notifications of formal (courtesy) visits by Her Majesty’s ships to foreign (including NATO) ports will be made by the Ministry of Defence..." (p. 93-2). See also Imperial War Museum - ROYAL NAVY VISITS SWEDEN: "HMS BULWARK, one of Britain's newest carriers, appeared opalescent against the background of the shore. She was floodlit during a courtesy visit to Stockholm". Alansplodge (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about casualties categories

Where do casualties of war that did not occur in active service go? For example, I'm working on an article on someone who is in the category Category:British military personnel killed in World War I, but he wasn't actually killed in the war but got sick of some fever and died. He's still considered a casualty of the war though, but it's not accurate to say he was killed in the war. There is a parent category, Category:British casualties of World War I, but it has only two people and they are civilians who were killed. Should there be other categories for military personnel who were casualties of the war but were not killed in active service? —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Died of illness and died of other causes, such a a vehicle accident. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, but we have Category:British military personnel killed in action by war, and it has as a sub-category Category:British military personnel killed in World War I. Which sort of implies that the latter category should only include those who were killed in action. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about contest criteria

Under rule 3 of the contest criteria it says The claiming editor must have made a meaningful change to an aspect of the article that leads directly to an increase in its assessment rating. Does creating an article where one did not previously exist and then self-rating (up to the required maximum permitted C class) count as a meaningful change or would the article have needed to exist already prior to the first day of the month in which it is being credited? Chetsford (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, nevermind - on further investigation, I think I just answered my own question! Chetsford (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Opinions at Talk:Mail buoy

A concern was raised that an article I created last night "Mail buoy" is original research. In the U.S. Navy this is actually a time honored and decades old practice. I found several online references to it: [66]. Can other editors, especially one's with Navy service, chime in at the talk page. I don't think it would do much good for me to just go back and forth alone with the editor who raised these concerns. -O.R.^Comms 15:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, along with the "search for the golden rivet" and the "left-handed spanner wrench" and followed by the "relative bearing grease". However, my concern isn't that it is not factual but if US Navy pranks belong in Wikipedia at all. This is trivia at best. They are all true but damn who really cares? I served in the US Navy for 5 years from 1975 to 1980. Tirronan (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a good point. The mail buoy might be unique in that it has a history dating from before WWII and has since come to be regarded almost in as much revere as the crossing the line. -O.R.^Comms 17:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The prank seems to be one of those things that uses a grain of feasibility to dupe the newcomer, like a snipe hunt (which incidentally, "long weight" and "striped paint", both of which are highly sought-after by newcomers, redirect to). There may be room for it in list of practical joke topics, but to be honest, I agree that the article is probably better focused on the actual, historical use of mail buoys, with maybe a sentence or two about it later becoming a prank for the US Navy and Coast Guard. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 17:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspect edits?

Hi all,

A new user, MatiasGerlich, has made a string of edits regarding casualty figures on several articles. Some of his edits have been reverted, but some remain (including partial reverts) on the below articles. No idea if his edits are worth keeping:

• World War II casualties of the Soviet Union
• Battle of Ilomantsi
• Battle of Nietjärvi
• Messerschmitt Bf 109
• Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 18:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Michael E. Thornton, Michael Thornton (Medal of Honor, awarded 1973) or Mike Thornton (Medal of Honor)

Resolving the naming uncertainty at Talk:Michael E. Thornton#Requested move 27 June 2018 may be of interest to Project members.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 13:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane at Havana, 11 October 1846

A severe hurricane struck Havana, Cuba on 11 October 1846. Many ships were lost or damaged, with the French and Spanish navies both losing vessels. Assistance in fine-tuning the wikilinks in the List of shipwrecks in October 1846 would be appreciated. Two vessels were reported under different names. I've left hidden comments as to the alternative names. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Trouble at Black Legend

Cateyed, on the second day of his editing here, decided to create The Black Legend, covering Spain, and to reduce the long-established Black Legend page to a rump. Before he got started Black Legend was nearly 34k raw bytes, he then expanded it up to nearly 62K, before removing the Spanish stuff and reducing it to under 10K. I haven't had time to to work through his changes, though it is clear his English will always need a basic check for grammar and spelling, and his additions seem to be reference-free. I didn't think this was acceptable without discussion, so for now I reverted back to a version before his big cut. This page gets over 300 views a day, and has always been somewhat of a target for problems. I haven't formed a view as to whether a generalized "black legend" page is needed, but if it is, I don't think Black Legend and The Black Legend are sufficiently distinct titles. Perhaps this should be resolved by a WP:RM discussion, but I'm asking for preliminary views at the BL talk page first, ideally from those who have looked through Cateyed's many additions, at BL and at the other article. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess! Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

IMO, The Black Legend is the better page. It at least attempts to be neutral, & doesn't rely almost entirely on block quotations. Which isn't to say it doesn't need work. (Fixing the tone and more comprehensiveness would be a good start.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's take a look at that opening sentence:

"The Spanish Black Legend", or just "The Black Legend" is a case of black legend affecting Spain, the Spanish Empire, and Latin America.

It says nothing. Whatsoever. At all. Completely vacuous. And it goes downhill from there. I'm as much a sucker for bad articles as anyone, but this one is irredeemable.

But wait, let's click through and find out what "black legend" is all about:

A "black legend" (Spanish: leyenda negra) is a historiographic phenomenon suffered by either characters, nations or institutions, and characterized by the sustained trend in historical writing of biased reporting, introduction of fabricated, exaggerated and/or decontextualized facts, with the intention of creating a distorted and uniquely inhuman image of it, while hiding from view all its positive contributions to history.

Oh yeah, now I understand. This cannot be fixed. Good luck. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

When on Earth did Britain invade Romania?

Hello guys. There's a map on the web showing the countries invaded by Britain, so why is my country colored on that map? I'm not sure about the others so I only asked about mine. Because the only 2 instances I can think of is after WW1, when British warships moved along the Danube and stationed in Romanian ports, but we were allies back then so this can't be an invasion, and the other is Operation Autonomous during WW2, when the Brits dropped a handful of paratroopers in Romania, which were soon arrested anyway. Hardly what can be called an invasion. Or...do air attacks count as invasion? Because then yes, we did have some RAF bombardments here. Torpilorul (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

1854. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

From 1854: "Britain sends Russia an ultimatum to withdraw from two Romanian provinces it has conquered, Moldavia and Wallachia." This is an invasion? Torpilorul (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

See Crimean War#Danube campaign Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing of relevance to the matter at hand. British forces never set foot in the Romanian principalities. If British-allied forces invade is that taken as a British invasion? I just don't get it... Torpilorul (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Assuming this map is the map you mean, if you read the small print the author defines "invaded" as The British were found to have achieved some sort of military presence in the territory – however transitory – either through force, the threat of force, negotiation or payment. Incursions by British pirates, privateers or armed explorers have also been included, provided they were operating with the approval of their government. Thus, if even a single SOE agent landed in the country during WWII, a troop train passed through a corner of the country, or a damaged aircraft was forced to land in the country, that constitutes "invasion". (Even by that hyper-broad definition, the list is still questionable. Post-Soviet 1990s creations like Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are shown as having been invaded by Britain, while countries like Luxembourg which saw British military action in both world wars are left off the list; likewise Sweden—part of which was occupied by the British in the 19th century—is left off the list.) ‑ Iridescent 07:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Incursions by British pirates, privateers or armed explorers have also been included, provided they were operating with the approval of their government." Strange definition. Privateers typically were commissioned by various governments and states, but pirates are typically unaffiliated with any state. "Privateering uses similar methods to piracy, but the captain acts under orders of the state authorizing the capture of merchant ships belonging to an enemy nation, making it a legitimate form of war-like activity by non-state actors." Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

[67]. Also we did bomb the Romanian oil fields, but the map is a bit iffy and I would not use it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axles about some map on the internet. If it was on WP or Commons, it would require action. But it isn't. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It all just seems so...stretched. By the same logic, we can do a version for Romania and color in countries like Angola, the DRC and Turkey. My view of what an invasion is, is very "classical": if a force establishes front lines in another country's territory and occupies territory into the said country behind those frontlines. As in something actually palpable and which can be seen on a map. Torpilorul (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As Peacemaker67 (almost) says, this isn't the complaints department for the internet. If you're aware of that map or a list derived from it being hosted on Wikipedia or Commons, or being used as a source for Wikipedia articles, then we can discuss it, but we're not here to be this guy. ‑ Iridescent 13:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I was not complaining, I just wanted answers. Don't get your funnels in a twist. -_- Torpilorul (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright question

Does anyone know whether a report by a UN Truth Commission would be in the public domain? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no, it would not automatically. You can contact the UN about a specific publication here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I assumed not, but it would have made my life easier if it was. I had hoped to use a section in one of their reports as an outline for a draft I'm working on, but it would need to be in the public domain or I wouldn't be able to save it. No worries though, I'll just paraphrase. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Oddly enough there is no copyright or license notice on their web page or reports that I can find. Under the Berne Convention this means they are not public domain or licensed for reuse. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't seem correct: [68]. It seems surprising that the UN hasn't adopted some form of a CC license. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I was looking on the USIP web site,[69] since they are the ones who publish the reports. It's unclear to me what the relationship is between USIP and UN. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Compassionate727, I believe Secretariat reports are public domain. The U.S. Institute of Peace has *nothing* repeat *nothing* to do with the UN; please post the link of the exact report and we can tell you the PD or not status. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As of 1987, see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Administrative_Instruction_ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2, Secretariat official documents were in the public domain. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Buckshot06 Sorry for the late response. The document in question is this. Looks like it meets criteria B for public domain release, provided that policy was still in effect. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Template in question is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-UN-doc, citing that exact document. I believe you have permission to cite, for dissemination of UN ideas. Check with Moonriddengirl for a definitive answer. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone interested in Warrior ?

Another of those articles fundamental to our mission which serious needs some editorial input. It's not one I particularly feel qualified to tackle but it is short on an underlying purpose. It should IMO be about the social concept of a warrior and how that has developed through military history. Unfortunately, a lot of it is a list of wiki articles about tribes, warrior societies, military orders, regiments. I'm about to unwatch it and leave it to decline but I will contribute if anyone wants to pick it up as a project. Monstrelet (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

How about opening it to a wider audience of editors at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 18:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Marines' Hymn

Is this un-sourced edit correct? See [70]

"Western Illinois University uses the hymn prior to all football games. They are the only non-military academy allowed to use the hymn the university has had permission to use the official nickname, mascot, and hymn of the Corps since 1927."

It also appears on the WIU WP page, unsourced. --220 of ^Borg 02:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

found this from a quick search (https://goleathernecks.com/sports/2014/6/3/athletics_0603144136.aspx?id=11). Nothing about the hymn though. Garuda28 (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

ACR nomination problem

Hello! I am trying to nominate Arab–Khazar wars for ACR, but when I click on the "currently undergoing" link in the MILHIST project tag, I do not see the usual pre-formatted review page, just a blank page. Constantine ✍ 15:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I am of course able to simply copy-paste the templates etc from other nominations and completing the nomination manually, I am just notifying that there is a problem with this being done automatically. --Constantine ✍ 16:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources for Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém

Nguyễn Ngọc Loan and Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém both have problems with questionable sourcing. I removed a site called vietcatholic which is used as a source. The site was used as a citation to prove that the executed man had committed war crimes himself prior to his execution. Both articles have issues with sourcing and need expansion. I'd like people with more knowledge on the subject to review them.

• Talk:Execution_of_Nguyễn_Văn_Lém#Blatantly_biased_source
• Talk:Nguyễn_Ngọc_Loan#James_S._Robbins_as_a_source:

Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Photo ID

I just came across this image which could be uploaded to Commons. It shows two soldiers riding in an FV107 Scimitar at what appears to be a parade in Estonia in 2018. AFAIK, the only operator of the Scimitar outside the UK is Latvia. The helmets are obviously not MK7, so I suppose this is in fact at Latvian vehicle. Can anyone confirm this? De728631 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, at this event there also was a Challenger 2 MBT with the machine gunner wearing a shoulder patch that looks a lot like the King's Royal Hussars's tacflash. So apparently there were British troops involved. De728631 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not recognize the shoulder flash on the two Scimitar crew.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Their uniform camo pattern does look like MTP though whereas Latvia uses this "pixelated" type of digicam. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we have enough to answer your questions.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Another image https://www.pexels.com/photo/902240/ show a British Army numberplate 01AY77. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That's it then. Thanks, everyone. De728631 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

See also British Troops Join Estonia's 100 Years Of Independence Celebrations. Alansplodge (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Requesting help at Talk:Battle of Chosin Reservoir#Use of Yu Bin source

Discussion at Talk:Battle of Chosin Reservoir#Use of Yu Bin source is pretty much deadlocked. Would appreciate other's opinions. Factotem (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Jules de Blosseville

I came across the article on Jules de Blosseville whilst looking for the scientific expedition during which La Lilloise was lost. Have tagged it for this WP. There is a major discrepancy in that it is stated that his expedition was to the Denmark Strait, but the wreck of his ship was found in the Solomon Islands! Anyone who can add to the story of the expedition please do so. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That info seems to be just taken from a private letter in the 1840s (see Athenaeum 1845) and there seems to be no confirmation. The La Lilloise was not found. They did however find the wreck of another french expedition ship, the La Boussole, lost in 1788 near that same Vanikoro-island in 2005 CNN, so maybe somebody mixed that up. Alexpl (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alexpl: That text is identical to that reported in the source I quoted. Have tweaked the article to take account of the doubts raised here. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I think one should go further Mjroots and remove that information from the entire article per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Its a minority view at best - more likely a newspaper hoax. Alexpl (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Not so sure about that, but happy to hear others opinions. I've clearly written it to indicate that there is doubt in what was reported, but still stating as fact that the report appeared in the press. Going further and stating that it was probably/possibly a mix-up with La Boussole is straying into the realms of WP:OR, which is why I've avoided doing so. Of course, if a source can be found to back that up, then it can be included. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Those are not A-grade newspapers of the time. I couldnt find any other reception of that spectacular "find" over the decades, so it seems to be fair to rate that as some sort of false information. Alexpl (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The Aberdeen Journal was a solid enough newspaper in its day. Pretty sure that if I searched I could find plenty of other newspapers of the period that the story appeared in, as they all cribbed off each other back then. Let's both step back and allow further input from other editors. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

My French isn't that good. There is an online source in French which probably verifies the text I tagged as needing a reference. Can someone please check the source and add the necessary reference if it does check out. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The French book confirms the northern location of the last contact with the ship. It mentions the report of the supposed southern wreck, but dismisses it as a simple reporting error.(pages 183 and 184). It makes the point that for the report to be correct either the ship made an extraordinary voyage and just happened to founder atop the Bousolle and Astrolabe, or some unknown currents happened to transport the wreck all the way from Greenland to conveniently drop it atop the other wrecks..Meters (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's good. I've amended the article and list of shipwrecks in 1833 to cover this information. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Romania during WW2 was NOT a Fascist regime!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is getting a bit soapboxy, so I'm hatting this discussion. Torpilorul knows what he needs to do if he wants to follow this up; start discussion on the talk pages of the Ion Antonescu or Romania in World War II articles bringing reliable sources. Thanks to Mojoworker for making a start on that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

---

I am making this section because there are numerous instances where Romania's WW2 Government is deemed as Fascist. This is factually wrong, Marshal Antonescu was plainly a military dictator, with virtually no ideological social programs. He even purged Fascist elements from his Gov't 6 months before joining the war. Killing Jews does not make you a Fascist, he did it to ensure Germany's favor, as indicated by his reversal of attitude towards Jews after Germany's blunder at Stalingrad. Joining the Axis does not make you a Fascist. We can't keep letting errors like this slide, it is disingenuous, it is practically lying about the history of a country. I joined the Wiki mainly for the WW2 Romanian Navy, but I discovered with stupor that pretty much everything related to Romania in WW2 has a concerning amount of sheer BS in it. Most of the time, unsourced. Torpilorul (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day. This appears to be far from a fringe idea regarding Romania in WWII, particularly the period September 1940 to January 1941, but also the military dictatorship in general. See this, this, this and this. It appears the academic consensus is at least partially on the side of Romania being a fascist state during the war. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, those academics are plainly wrong. Dare I say illogical. The man suppressed and kicked out of the country the biggest Fascist move in the country, which in old Fascist fashion became the only legal political party. How on Earth can he be objectively seen as a Fascist is beyond me. Torpilorul (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Antonescu's article discusses both his policies of ethnic nationalism and the "historiographic dispute about whether [his] regime was fascist or more generically right-wing authoritarian". If there are grounds for adding nuance to other articles, then by all means, but it seems to me that he and his government bore, at one time or another, a number of the hallmarks of fascism, even if not categorically or continually fascist him/itself. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 08:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Either way I'm currently on a binge to replace any time Antonescu's regime is referred to as "Fascist" after January 1941 with "pro-Axis" or "military dictatorship", the latter two are definitely more factually correct. Torpilorul (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any sources saying it was not fascist?Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Torpilorul I strongly recommend not going on a binge amending articles that may already reflect the consensus of reliable sources. WP articles should reflect what the reliable sources say, not our personal opinions. It is apparent that some academics consider the Romanian government during WWII to have been fascist, some may not accept that. The academic consensus is what our articles should reflect, with alternative (non-fringe) views also accommodated within them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Do not worry partner. Most of my modifications involve unsourced claims based on inherent assumptions. I found one sourced one, and left it alone. I also encountered "pro-Fascist" twice, and left those alone. Just don't outright call him a Fascist, that is immensely factually wrong. In order to be a Fascist you first have to be a politician. He wasn't, he was a general leading a military Government. Torpilorul (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Without sources your opinion is irrelevant, [71]. So not you do not have to be a politician, just a dictator.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, it's fact. And please, of all people to warn about sources, I am not one. I'm a Google Books gopher, digging for hours before making my articles. Torpilorul (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

If you do not have RS making a claim then it is only your opinion. If you have RS making the claim lets see them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid that we have an instance of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS here.--Catlemur (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a great wrong alright. An utter lie. But...history is written by the winners, unfortunately. If the West likes to smear Antonescu as a Fascist I guess I can't really do anything here, on the English Wiki. I drop my case. G'day. Torpilorul (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

We use reliable sources on en WP, not editor's opinions. You have been asked to produce reliable sources that say Antonescu wasn't a fascist, but you haven't provided any, even in Romanian or from other non-Western perspectives. You have just stated your own opinion about it. I and others have reverted your "binge". If you want to prosecute this topic, I suggest you gather academic sources that say Antonescu wasn't a fascist, and discuss the matter on his article talk page as a first port of call. It is not my area of interest, but I will watchlist it in case you do so. Go well, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Disgusting. This yes yet another instance of "lumping together", a reprehensible act of Western historiography that countries like mine all too often suffer. Tell me, why Fascism applied in Germany got its own name: Nazism? Nazism is more similar to Fascism than what Romania had, yet we're the ones branded Fascists. If you suppress, outlaw and kick out your country its very largest Fascist movement - and still get called a Fascist - then that's just retarded. I hope in a few years unbiased Western sources will pop up that we can use. Because we can't let these lies stand. This is nothing more than smearing. Torpilorul (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

In think this is all getting a bit soapboxy and should be hatted.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Just letting you all know that I calmed down now. I apologize for getting so fired up. Especially that I didn't even bother to find sources for my point. I'll try to find material for my case, and leave this discussion as it is now be. Sorry for wasting your time guys. Torpilorul (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Torpilorul: Here's a start for you, in a journal with a book review of Hitler's Forgotten Ally: Ion Antonescu and his Regime, Romania 1940-1944, Was Antonescu a fascist? Deletant's response is that while the Legionary Movement was fascist, Antonescu was not, although 'his rule was overtly anti-Semitic' (p. 71). And Antonescu was not strictly a fascist; in fact, he purged the fascist elements from his regime at the beginning of 1941. Mojoworker (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inquiry about shore establishment articles Royal Navy

Hi I need some clarification in regards in the way shore establishment articles for the Royal Navy have been set up on investigating the official Royal Navy source The Navy List in multiple versions of it (1815 to 1970) there is a section heading titled: Flag Officers in Commission, Officers Commanding Squadrons, Senior Naval Officers, Naval Officers that appears at the top of the page followed by a table with five columns the first one is listed as Stations if its a major command it is bolded followed by its sub-command or sub-area who are also listed as stations unbolded. The second column is the stations flag ship or ship borne-in, third column is flag officers, officers commanding squadrons/ senior naval Officers/ naval officers etc the fourth column is chief of staff/flag captain etc and finally the stations secretary. I cannot find any version of the same section heading in any of the navy lists from 1820 to 1970 listing any reference to shore establishment in any of the columns it lists naval stations. So my question is why do we have for e.g. HMS Badger (shore establishment) when it was the base flag ship of the Harwich Station the navy list uses the term station interchangeably to mean an administrative or geographic or operational command or can be a station with all those functions anyone thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

HMS Badger is a stone frigate, a commissioned ship of the Royal Navy - effectively a naval base. Not all shore establishments are commissioned as ships. The Harwich Station is the military formation - large unit - that has its headquarters within the base complex named HMS Badger. A Royal Air Force example is that No. 1 Group RAF has its headquarters at RAF High Wycombe - first is the military formation, second is the base where the headquarters of the military formation is located. Does that help to explain? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes thanks very much for clearing that up its because I am in the process of creating RN Stations.--Navops47 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Maine Coast Guard Companies

I've come across the "Maine Coast Guard Companies". In the Dyer Compendium it states it is in Companies "A" to "G" but overly states it is the Coast Guard Infantry. While book by Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain is a Battalion. Would it be "Companies", "Battalion" or "Regiment" for a better military name? Adamdaley (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Per this all of the companies were part of the 1st Battalion, Maine Coast Guard. [72] The Maine Adjutant General report calls it the Coast Guards Battalion [73]. Kges1901 (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for Trident (UK nuclear programme) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Trident (UK nuclear programme); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

HELP WANTED

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Thank you and happy editing... [Note:This page may not be on my watchlist so if you want to reply to me, please either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe if you made RfA less terrifying and accepted volunteers rather than nominations you'd get more applicants. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Getting someone to nominate you is an ideal. RFA had a successful candidate recently who nominated their self. And there is currently one happening that is a self-nomination. As for being terrifying, RFA if you have the "right stuff" to be an admin, you can get through RFA. Admins deal with conflict more contentious than what happens on RFA. If you believe you have the edit history and motivation to be an admin, either get someone to nominate you or do it yourself. — Maile (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Maile66. I approached RfA with a great deal of trepidation, but sailed through after trying ORCP first. If any Milhist member is thinking about nominating, I recommend getting in touch with one or two of the admins who you've interacted with a bit to get their views and to potentially act as nominators. If you look at recent RfAs, you will see the sorts of questions and criteria people use to make their decisions about support/oppose. There are several admins among the Milhist community, including a few of the current coords. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I for one don’t have any sympathy for backlogs or the lack of admins. You know who used to do thousands of edits a week on these areas? Kumioko, but now he’s wmf banned because he refused to roll over and take a bullshit ban. So when you ban high output dedicated editors to protect a few bad admins, then you get what you deserve. If you want help with backlogs, then get him unbanned or quit whining about backlogs. 174.204.4.232 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@174.204.4.232, Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Let us not assume that the unregistered editor is Kumioko just because they are pretending to be Kumioko. In reality, Kumioko never had sysop rights, so would never have been in a position to help with admin backlogs. The edits they did carry out, were not exactly ground-breaking -- it's not like this project is on its knees because there's no Kumioko. More like no-one has even noticed. MPS1992 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Maile and Peacemaker. Most of the people who've served as coordinators would be well positioned to apply for the admin tools (hint, hint), as would many of the other experienced editors here. I'd be happy to provide advice to anyone who's interested in applying for the tools. The process isn't as scary as it used to be, and level headed editors with experience both as content creators and on the 'back end' of Wikipedia have a high probability of a drama-free RfA. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The nomination process is one whereby other editors want to know if the nominee has the background, and ability to work with others, to get the tools. You get out of adminship exactly what you put into it. But as an admin, you will find that a whole lot of little nitpicking stuff you had to request an admin to do, is now within your ability to take care of. — Maile (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

German Phosgene attack (19 December 1915)

Based on research by Fritz Haber into chlorine as a weapon, the Nernst-Duisberg Commission investigated the feasibility of adding phosgene to chlorine gas, to increase its lethality. Work by Richard Willstätter to supply the German troops with protective equipment enabled the German army to contemplate the use the far more lethal combination of phosgene and chlorine without risk to German units. Phosgene was used by the German army from the end of May 1915, when attacks were conducted on the Western Front against French troops and on the Eastern Front on Russian troops, where some 240 long tons (244 t) of chlorine with an addition of 5 percent phosgene was discharged at Bolimów. Attacks against Russian troops using mixed chlorine and phosgene followed on 12 June and 6 July.

Just noticed that this paragraph has a citation needed from 2015; does anyone have the sources necessary to cite it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is pretty much a copy of the text from the german Wikipedias Gaskrieg während des Ersten Weltkrieges - Their footnotes 10,11 and 12 cover all the information. I would do it, but the entire article German Phosgene attack (19 December 1915) doesnt include any "ref" tags but uses templates only for all references - not my field of expertise. Alexpl (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I added them in the right place. It would be great if someone could check for me - it's been far too long since I learnt schoolboy German. The German article also didn't have any page numbers - Dumelow (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"Donner und Blitzen verdammt Englander! For you ze var is over." Thanks very much, I didn't think to check GerWiki. Sfns are just about all i know know when it comes to citations and refs. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. I checked the pages and rearranged the citations a bit. Still missing is the book:

• Martinetz, Dieter: Der Gaskrieg 1914–1918 – Entwicklung, Herstellung und Einsatz chemischer Kampfstoffe. Bernard und Graefe, Bonn 1996. ISBN 3-7637-5952-2.

It was used as reference for for the attack dates "12 June" and "6 July 1915" (p.26) - the german Wiki does not list it as "citation", because it is already present in the "Literatur" - section. Alexpl (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Inadequate references - King George V-class battleship (1939)

I have downgraded King George V-class battleship (1939) from B to C, and tagged it as needing improvements to the references. This is because many of the references are useless, being either undefined or ambiguously defined as noted by me on the talk page. Your attention would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Winston Churchill - reference probems

There are a number of unresolved reference problems on Winston Churchill. Please see the thread at Talk:Winston Churchill#Sources. Your attention would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Before I nominate it at WP:FAR, is there anyone in here you might be interested in bringing Wesley Clark up to date? It hasn't been updated in any appreciable way since 2008. There's probably not even a whole lot to do since he's retired from both the military and from politics, but it needs attention. --Laser brain (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? It looks pretty good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Other than needing a sentence or so saying he's a regular talking head on military and international security matters on CNN, CNBC etc, a quick trawl for news about him doesn't come up with much. Certainly not enough problems to justify a FAR, IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

His web site is dead and there was just nothing much about what he's been up to since 2008. I don't want to take it to FAR but literally no one responded when I asked about it on Talk. --Laser brain (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify: the article has statements that imply he currently runs WesleyPAC etc which seems to be dead. It just needs to be updated with his current activities. --Laser brain (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

San Pasqual staff ride

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/December 2018. Join a staff ride-like meetup before the 172nd anniversary of the Battle of San Pasqual. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Alfred Jodl ?

The page is of low quality. Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

G’day Xx236, it is currently rated as C-Class on the assessment scale, so it definitely needs work. Feel free to improve it! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Benadir and Battle of Barawa

The pages of the Battle of Benadir and Battle of Barawa keep getting hijacked by anonymous Somali nationalists who make of two Portuguese raids great Somali victories. Can we get a lock on those two pages? Crenelator (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Crenelator: If edit-warring—slow-burning or otherwise—is taking place, then you should report at the edit-warring noticeboard; if you feel they require page protection (Benadir, possibly, Barawa less so, IMHO), then likewise you should file a request for page protection. Both those boards are also regularly patrolled by admins, so a quicker response/reaction is more likely than posting here, all things being equal. Just fyi. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I appreciate the advice, that's exactly what I wanted to know. Thanks. Crenelator (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Crenelator: the text the IP keeps adding is identical to that used by Loliban so based on the behavioural evidence I have given a 1-week block for the block evasion. Nthep (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguators

See Talk:Douglas Ford (GC)#Requested move 5 July 2018. Should we disambiguate people only notable for winning certain high awards by those awards? This definitely affects Category:Recipients of the George Cross, Category:Recipients of the Victoria Cross and Category:Recipients of the Medal of Honor, all of which use this form of disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And again. Talk:Walter Anderson (GC)#Requested move 11 July 2018. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox images

Many, if not a majority, of infoboxes of Medal of Honor recipients include a photo of the person and an image of the medal (e.g. Harold C. Agerholm, Richard B. Anderson, Sylvester Antolak). I've started to add the medal image where it was missing, and on Salvatore Giunta was reverted by Rockhead126 with the edit summary "Serves no purpose". I see no reason for this inconsistency and since so many of these articles have the medal image, believe that is an implied consensus to display it here. The same is commonly done with other medals also. Do others agree the medal image should be included? MB 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I would leave the medal image out. The medal tables or medalfests on American military biographies should also be avoided Gbawden (talk)

The medal is often used as substitute if there is no actual picture for the profile picture entry available. But once a real picture is there, as the case in several of the examples, I think it should be deleted from that spot; especially as there is a medal entry in the box already where is the place it belongs (though not as picture but as text, possibly with ribbon). ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This insource:/medal\s*=/ incategory:"World War II recipients of the Medal of Honor" shows there are over 100 articles just among WWII recipients that have both the medal image and a photograph. Clearly there have been some editors that choose to include both. There are probably hundreds more in articles on other eras. They can be removed easily with AWB if that is the consensus. MB 23:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with GEL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The relatively long Salvatore Giunta has 3 photos of him wearing the medal, and 2 more of forms of the insignia, so here that seems enough. In shorter articles with fewer photos, like Richard B. Anderson, with just a small headshot portrait, a double image in the box seems fine. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't see what purpose adding the MOH image to the infobox serves. While I'm not particularly opposed to using it as a placeholder in instances where there may not be any other image, as is the case with many pre-World War I recipients, I'm not aware of similar practices being widely used elsewhere on Wikipedia. (See recipients of Hero of the Soviet Union, Presidential Medal of Freedom, Victoria Cross) It's my understanding that the image has been removed from the infoboxes of many articles, including Giunta's and the majority of post-Vietnam Medal of Honor recipient articles that once featured it, for the aforementioned reasons. Rockhead126 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Rockhead126 and GELongstreet. Where there's an actual portrait of the article subject there's no need to also decorate the infobox image with the Medal of Honor. We don't do this for articles on people with equivalent national decorations, it equates their entire lives with this single medal, and it conflicts with the spirit of MOS:LEADIMAGE. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree that if there's a photo of holder there is no need for picture of medal Lyndaship (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

commons:Category:Hurricane Aircat

This airboat needs better cats - and apparently, an article on Eng Wikipedia. Someone may have fun with this weird vehicle/trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Naval action and Infobox military conflict

Hi people, looking for a consensus for

Main article: Capture of the Esmeralda

See also: Talk:Capture of the Esmeralda

. A case similar as Battle of Trenton, but it's about a Naval Action. The question: ¿are belligerents the Cochrane's squadron, as the mercenaries of Trenton, yes or not?

Explanation:

• It is a naval action, not a terrestrial action, with ships under the Maritime Law
• Belligerants are a faction of war of insurgency, rebels of unrecognized state, not a formal country (Chile will be recognized by the United Kingdom years later)
• All the commanders and sailors, or the main force of the battle were British, sailors of fortune or foreign mercenaries, not citizens of the country involved or allies of the unrecognized state.
• Thomas Cochrane, the real Master and Commander,[74] like many foreign volunteers, was recruited on the soil of the United Kingdom (neutral state), that the laws of this moment allowed fought under the war faction of the insurgents not recognized as states, until the prohibition of the law of Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819.
• During the action, they approached with a foreign flag (Union Jack) and wore British uniforms (Ruse de guerre)
• The action occurs during a Ceasefire (outside the Law of war).
• The sailors of fortune reclame $120,000 (£24,000) money for the Warship Esmeralda.

Please vote YES or NOT, or comments, or ask for more information. Thank you.

--Caminoderoma (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• My 2cents - Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald was a mercenary in the service of Chile - with whom he was quite closely associated with at the time (and the Chileans subsequently named a number of vessels for him). The law of war and the ruse of using British uniforms is mostly irrelevant.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The question is incorrect. It's not the Cochrane squadron, it's the Chilean Navy. It was a naval force organized by Chile and composed of Chileans, British, Americans and, to a lesser extent, other nationalities. The British, like the other foreigners linked to the navy, were not an independent force or entity, they were at the service of Chile. It does not deserve to be in the Infobox, but what can be done is to indicate the nationality of the members of the crew in the body of the article, as it is already done.

Chile, being or not a recognized State, was already at that time a political entity that acted independently of the Spanish Monarchy. --Muwatallis II (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Cochrane's Squadron is apropiate, but in the same sense, the question is the same with your words to describe the chilean Squadron of insurgent goverment, ships without an internationally recognized flag, that use a foreign flag (Union Jack). The first Squadron of Chile is a short Navy (3 frigates, 1 corvette, 1 brig, and numerous small boats) and was founded on November, 1817. Indeed, one of the characteristics was the heterogeneity of its crew, consisting in two large groups: those who spoke English and those who spoke Spanish (Cubitt, 1976: 193-195). It was stipulated that each ship should be governed by the language of the commander (García Reyes, 1846. 10).

As of November 1818, chilean first Squadron being commanded by Thomas Cochrane, which meant 500 British, including sailors and officers, were integrated with him. Cochrane distrusted the Chilean officiality, so that upon his arrival he removed all the Chilean commanders, Away with you!, and replaced them by British officers or Americans. In this way, in practice, the first Chilean squadron officially governed by the English language.

About regulation to use on ships. The British governed by the British Regulations, and the Chileans by the Ordinances. In practice, the majority of commanders was British origin, then British regulations on the ship under British captains.

The navy list in 1818 —the year that Cochrane arrived in Chile— was dominated by British names, and in 1820 the majority of the fifty officers and 1,600 sailors in the new Chilean Navy were from Britain. In this moment the Chilean Navy have 2,000 sailors. Brian Vale say that all officers and Two thirds of the Rebeld chilean Navy were British people. (Cochrane in the Pacific).[75]

Cochrane at life risk, and British people at sea, they made the capture of Esmeralda. The chilean government were in Chile.--Caminoderoma (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Expedition against Esmeralda

Name of the ship	Number of men	Chileans	British /North Americans
O'Higgins	92	0	92
Lautaro	99	43	56
Independecia	49	15	34
Total of shipman	240	58	182
Total of officers	32	5	27
Commander-in-Chief: Thomas Cochrane

Numbers.--Caminoderoma (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the nationality of the foreigners is or how much they are composed, as long as they are in the service of Chile they ought to be listed under Chile, even if there were not that many actual Chileans at the battle. The only exception per existing consesus would be if all of the personnel were British, but that is not true here. Kges1901 (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Then, how to translate it to the Infobox, the NPOV means Co-belligerents, means Support, or means Delete the Foreign Volunteers from any place in the template? --Caminoderoma (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete from infobox. Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Call for clarification on Bangladeshi transition to independence

Expert editors are invited to comment on the events surrounding the military occupation of East Pakistan territory in 1971–1972, and the transition to a sovereign state. Discussion at Talk:List of military occupations#Bangladesh independence. — JFG ^talk 11:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes Sports vs. Military

Is there a policy for using an Infobox like Template:Infobox college coach or Template:Infobox military person, when somebody like Edward Leonard King had different occupations - coach and army general? Alexpl (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

In a number of cases, you can use {{Infobox person}} to fill in general information, then include the more specific template in the |module= parameters. {{Infobox military person}} is listed in Category:Biographical templates usable as a module, so can be used like that, but {{Infobox college coach}} is not, so it's not clear that it can be used like that. Given that it uses Lua modules, it may be usable, so I'd recommend experimenting (maybe in a sandbox). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 19:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I've just tried, and it doesn't quite work like that. Give me a couple of hours, and I'll see if I can update it to work as a module. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 19:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Turns out it's frequently-enough-used that it's protected to all but template editors. I'll put in a request in Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 19:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, after double-checking, it turns out I'd forgotten to declare |embed=yes in the respective templates. So, for example, if you have {{Infobox military person}} first, then you'll want to use {{Infobox person}} for the main template, and then use |module={{Infobox military person followed by |embed=yes (making sure to wrap the closing }} before declaring the |module2= parameter). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 19:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - my main concern was not to offend the person who put the "coach"-template in. I´ll try to figure it out. Alexpl (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC) @Sasuke Sarutobi: I think I pretty much nailed it! Alexpl (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Yes, you did! Spot on! — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 12:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done: Now added both templates as modules as Infobox person. Thank you for your patience while I un-addled myself. Feel free to populate any other parameters in the templates. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

SBN-ISBN question

I got a copy of The Luftwaffe War Diaries by Cajus Bekker which has the SBN 345-22674-7-165 so added a 0 as per Template:Cite book (For sources with the older 9-digit SBN system, prefix the number with a zero; thus, SBN 902888-45-5 should be entered as |isbn=0-902888-45-5.) and got Check |isbn= value: invalid prefix (help). using 0- and 0. Any ideas? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

An isbn can be a 10- or 13-digit number. When it is 13-digits it must begin with 978 or 979. The trick for adding a leading zero to 9-digit sbn numbers is not working because 345-22674-7-165 is 12-digits. Are you sure that the 12-digit number is an sbn and not some cataloging or other such number? If you must include this identifier in your citations, consider using |id=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks it's definitely got SBN in front; there is a LoC 68-19007 too but I'll give id= a go. Keith-264 (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently the 12-digit sbn can be converted to an isbn that works in Special:BookSources. Apparently the trick is to drop the rightmost 3 digits, add a leading '0' to the remaining nine digits for a 10-digit isbn, or add a leading '9780' to make a 13-digit isbn:

SBN 345-22674-7-165 → 345-22674-7 → ISBN 0-345-22674-7

SBN 345-22674-7-165 → 345-22674-7 → ISBN 978-0-345-22674-7

I cannot confirm the legitimacy of this conversion, but it may be preferable to |id= because |isbn= gives readers a link to Special:BookSources. Editors can always use both |isbn=978-0-345-22674-7 and |id=SBN: 345-22674-7-165 in cs1|2 templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put in the ISBN-13 and the id=SBN: with the LCCN. Keith-264 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Worldcat gives 10- and 13-digit ISBNs and an OCLC.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a later edition. Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Rudolf Abel

There is currently a discussion on Talk:Rudolf Abel about which date format to use. Interested parties are invited to join the discussion to help establish consensus. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

RfD notification: Michael Thornton (Medal of Honor)

You're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 18#Michael Thornton (Medal of Honor) regarding the redirect Michael Thornton (Medal of Honor) and, perhaps, broader questions about the naming of articles of Medal of Honor recipients. --BDD (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist question

Does anyone know how to nullify the recent changes to the watchlist or know a better place to ask? Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: At the top of my watchlist it says, New watchlist features have been enabled by default. To disable, you may opt out of improvements in your preferences. For technical issues please see the village pump..."watchlist features" links to [76], "opt out of improvements" to Special/preferences, and "the village pump" links to—well, you get my drift :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• You mean the design change? Preferences -> Watchlist -> Hide the improved version of the Watchlist . ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I remember suggesting that the next time someone introduced a wheeze, they might include an opt-out; looks like I got what I wanted; thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Last battle on British soil

I've just created the Last battle on British soil list article, and I would appreciate it if those more knowledgeable than me about military history would give it a going over. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather dubious about including riots.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with everything in that list after Fishguard inclusively. That fizzled out before a confrontation; Bossenden, as noted, more or less a riot; Graveney Marsh, involved about ten people; Orgreave and Beanfield are only battles in a popular sense. Ultimately, "depending largely on how you define battle and how you classify various events" is such a loose statement that it includes everything and excludes nothing. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The point is that everything on this list (other than Orgreave and Beanfield) have been called the last battle on British/English soil by reliable sources. The other two took place on English soil and are popularly known as battles (and I've heard both described as the "last battle on English soil" but can't immediately find reliable sources doing so). Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What about the Battle of Waterloo? These are purely populist terms. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo (1992) is a redlink and I can't immediately find anything on google that enlightens me about what it was. If you have a reliable source calling something the "last battle on British soil" (or a similar term) then add it to the list. It doesn't matter whether the source is scholarly or popularlist - if the event was an armed and/or violent conflict on British soil between (usually large) groups of people with definable sides (at least one of which was organised), on British soil, and gets called a battle in RS it belongs on the list. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, @Thryduulf:, it was 1992 [not 1997]...they all blur together for me  :) like the Battle of Trafalgar Square, 1989added a source. Not that The Independent or The Times actually makes them battles. The thing is, does your article pass WP:LISTN? Have all the entries been discussed collectively (rather than individually) by reliable sources? The question is, does it pass WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

References

It's somewhere between a set index and a standalone list, as it's a list of events that have been called or regarded as "the last battle on British/English soil" even though none of the articles do (or should) use that term. I debated tagging it as a set index. The Waterloo and Trafalgar events seem to be riots described as battle-like rather than being called battles, and unlike Orgreave or Beanfield they aren't known as battles and certainly unlikle Orgreave don't seem to have had any resemblance to a pitched battle. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 beat me to the punch on this, but that's my concern as well: are there any RS that collectively discuss claimants to the title "Last battle on British soil"? We can devise all manner of criteria to include or exclude claims, but ultimately, it is up to sources to compare the different possibilities and come to a conclusion. Any number of things can be added to the list simply because they are called "Battle of" and happened in the UK, but that doesn't make them valid entries unless RS say so. Anything else risks descent into OR, no matter how carefully considered. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well several of the RS used discuss whether a given event was or was not the "Last battle on British soil" (or English soil). This is often in the form "X wasn't the last, Y was because Z", and there are a ton of blogs and answer sites asking the question. Last battle on English soil existed as a redirect to Battle of Bossenden Wood from 2007 to today, when I targetted it to the new article as there clearly is no one single answer - everything prior to and including Gravney Marsh is explicitly called this in reliable sources. It can't be a disambiguation page because none of the article have or should have this name and it requires too much other information. It's sort of a set index (which doesn't require WP:LISTN), but again that indicates the articles should/could have similar names. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Battle of the Bogside (12 August – 14 August 1969) Keith-264 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't in Great Britain (the meaning of "British" in this context). Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Although that's rather splitting hairs, Keith-264 makes the good point that that the BotBS was one of the biggest insurrections in northern Europe since WWII—and still can't be considered a "battle". —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, per WP:SETINDEX, "Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article. The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list"  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

So what should it be then? There is clearly a need for some sort of list of articles about events called by this term. If it can't be a disambiguation, can't be a set index and can't be a stand-alone list what else can it be? Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I'm also dubious about including anything after Fishguard Lyndaship (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I can understand arguments for and against Orgreave and Beanfield, but Bossenden Wood and Graveney Marsh are both explicitly called "the last battle on English soil" in reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Ireland isn't in Britain but the British state doesn't.Keith-264 (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The British state is not the same thing as the island of Great Britain (and the state has never claimed otherwise) - the sources I found (unevaluated for reliability) discussing whether Bogside was a battle all talk about it being on Irish soil. If we include land that is politically not geographically British then we'd have to include the Falkland Islands, but I can't find any RS that mention that conflict in this context. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

How is this even remotely notable? Shall we create extend this WP:CRUFT to every single historical region and/or country on earth?--Catlemur (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I would. If it's historical then it's history. Please check if the Battle of Bamber Bridge fits into the scope of this article. MPS1992 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Catlemur: It's notable because it's a concept covered in multiple reliable sources (see the article). I have no interested in researching whether this is true in other countries or not, but if it is then we should have an equivalent article for any country where it is. As a wild guess I would think that it would only be relevant in places that had lots of battles hundreds of years ago but has seen no major conflict in recent times (when the answer would be obvious). Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: I don't think that does fit as it seems to be regarded as a riot or similar not a battle (despite the name) and nobody that I can find includes it in lists of battles, let alone as the last one. The more I research this it seems that "battle" means something with at least some characteristics of a medieval pitched battle - something which Orgreave certainly had, and Beanfield possibly so, but Bamber Bridge doesn't seem to have done. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that medieval aspects ("pitched battle" et cetera) are relevant, especially when some of the items in the list are World War 2 events where tactics and armaments were completely different. MPS1992 (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This article seems more like "Last vaguely combat related thing to happen in vaguely defined place, according to less than rigorous historical sources". (Hohum ^@) 00:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of events called the last battle on British (or English) soil in reliable sources - not ambiguous. The island of Great Britain is not vaguely defined in any sense. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: As Hohum pointed out you have created an amalgamation of battles, riots, skirmishes and civil unrest. Since most of the Western World has not seen combat since the end of World War II, one can argue that hundreds of funcrufty lists can be created. Any attempt to question the Anglospheric echo chamber here end up being a Sisyphean effort, because of the immense output of "reliable sources" the Anglosphere produces which lionize trivial events of no lasting importance or consequence.--Catlemur (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've created a list of events called the last battle on British (or English) soil in reliable sources, using the definition of "Great Britain" for British. There are plenty of reliable sources discussing this concept. That there is no single definition of "battle" is why different sources state that different events are the last battle. The concept, at least for Great Britain, is clearly encyclopaedic based on the many reliable sources using the term. Whether it is or is not a notable concept for other places is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sources being 50% museum or local government websites trying to push a POV and attract income from tourists.--Catlemur (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The "Fall of Port Stanley" on 14 June 1982, was the last battle of the Falklands War. (I'm limiting the meaning of "battle" to a deadly confrontation between the legitimate armed forces of sovereign entities, so excluding mob violence, riots, civil insurrection, etc.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that wasn't in Great Britain. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Try telling that to Islanders or veterans, you'd risk getting your arse kicked all the way across the Atlantic. "British soil" is any place where the ultimate governing authority is the parliament that sits in London. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dodger67: as discussed above and below your comment, on the article talk page and made clear in the article itself, in the context of the "last battle on British soil" the meaning of "British" universally used by reliable sources is "on the island of Great Britain". Whether or not the Falkland Islands are British, nobody can dispute the 1982 conflict over them took place on the island of Great Britain. Thryduulf (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to define some parameters.

What do we mean by "British Soil"

Simple question first.

My take, this usually means on the mainland of the island of Britain.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, I must defer to sources. "British soil" could refer to:

• Land anywhere in the world that is currently owned by the United Kingdom;
• Land anywhere in the world that was owned by the United Kingdom at the time of the battle;
• Land within "the British Isles" that is currently owned by the United Kingdom;
• Land within "the British Isles" that was owned by the United Kingdom at the time of the battle.

If there is dispute within the sources as to which is the most appropriate definition, then we discuss the dispute. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you post sources for "British soil" that refers to a battle not in mainland Britain?Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Every event that I've found a reliable or semi-reliable source calling the "last battle on British soil" (and almost every source full stop) has taken place on the island of Great Britain. In addition to those battles claimed to be the last, here is a list of every event google could find when searching for Battle "British Soil" in everything that wasn't a forum post or about 21st century economics or business:

Extended content

Battle of Bosworth Field Battle of Brentford Battle of Dintingdale (a skirmish associated with the Battle of Ferrybridge) Battle of Dorking (fictional) Battle of Falkirk Battle of Ferrybridge Battle of Flodden Battle of Fulford Battle of Glenshiel Battle of Hastings Battle of Littleferry (claimed as the second last on British soil) Battle of Marston Moor Battle of Nibley Green Battle of Pinkie Cleugh Battle of Prestonpans Battle of Sauchieburn Battle of Sedgemoor Battle of Shrewsbury Battle of St. Albans Battle of Stalling Down Battle of Stamford Bridge Battle of Towton Battle of Turnham Green Battle of Worcester Battle of York Bigbury Camp (named as "Bigbury hillfort" in the source; "site of Caesar's first battle on British soil")

You'll note that every single one is on the island of Great Britain - not even the Isle of Wight or (Northern) Ireland get a look in. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that helps us refine our criterion, then: a battle that took place on the island of Great Britain (i.e. within England, Scotland, or Wales). As these have continuously comprised a single British state for at least the last 300 years (depending on whether you're looking at the Acts of Union 1707 or other criteria, but that's moot), then the "currently-owned"/"then-owned" distinction also falls away. I would expect that the remainder would then comprise the distinction of how "battle" is defined (e.g. popularly named, like the Battle of Bamber Bridge, strictly a military action involving forces commanded by a non-British state, or some other definition).

I would like to continue to stress that all this is made explicit in the article; i.e. that the article discusses the consenses and discrepancies among RS about how the subject is defined, and the effect this definition has on which "battle" is then defined as "the last on British soil". Even where there are events that are not strictly military actions, I think there is potentially still room for discussion of those in the article (again, where borne out by RS). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

See also the article talk page. The only bit that is ambiguous in the slightest is what is meant by "battle" as only things that are called "last battle" in reliable sources are included. That there is no consensus definition of "battle" is the entire reason this is a list and not a redirect (incidentally, from a less detailed look than I've done for English, it seems that reliable sources all agree the last battles on Welsh and Scottish soil were Fishguard and Culloden respectively - it's only the English bit of British were there is any debate). If you think any of the entries could be better explained, then either explain them better or explicitly say what is unclear. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The Battle of Barking Creek was over the British Isles.....Keith-264 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The best reliable sources for a military history article is from works of military historians. These seem absent. Contrary to Thrydruf, references to "last battle" and "British soil" seem clickbaity, and are vague hyperbole. The fact that several different "battles" are apparently competing for what can surely only be a singular last event doesn't help. Are air battles "on" British soil? Should there be a companion article "Last battle over British soil"? Anyway, I'm off to start the "Length of a piece of string" article, only using reliable sources. (Hohum ^@) 20:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that several different battles are claiming to be the last is the entire point of the article - the last air battle over Great Britain is not in doubt and so all you'd have would be a redirect to Battle of Britain (and absolutely no reliable sources cite the Battle of Britain as a battle on English soil, let alone the last one). So what if the topic doesn't meet your personal standards of academic quality? This is a general purpose encyclopaedia and what matters is that topic meets WP:N. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: It was, but it was neither a battle on English soil or the last air battle over it so is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Wanting military history sources for a military history article is not my personal desire, its wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." (Hohum ^@) 00:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Perhaps I should have appended ;O) to my post. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

So why make it? Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

By virtue of being and island and its navy dominating Europe for several centuries, Britain (specifically, the island of Great Britain) hasn't seen a major invasion for centuries and the concept of "last battle in" or "last invasion of" is clearly notable here in a way that it isn't for most countries (look at all the wars fought in the last millennium in mainland Europe; there could be room for a similar article on the US for example, depending on how you define "battle" and "US") and there's clearly scope for an article which explains why the idea of a "last battle" is significant and presents the various competing claims. This looks to me like a decent first stab. If there are errors or omissions, those can be solved through editing, and I see there is productive discussion going on on the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

To put it really simply, only one word of the article title "Last battle on British soil" is unambiguous - "Last" - none of the rest is obvious. "Battle" seems to include any number of riots, gang fights, police actions, etc. "On" seems to be open to argument about aerial conflicts. Last but by no means least, "British soil" is wide open to a variety of interpretations and definitions. I put it to you all that the fundamental problem is that the title of the article does not match its scope. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What better title for a list of events called "Last battle on British soil" in reliable sources could there be? Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how the RS frame it, but "Last battle in British territory" might be a reasonable solution. This would accommodate airspace, coastal waters and overseas territories owned, with "British soil" and its home-nation connotation then becoming a section within the article. Factotem (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Given that "Last battle in British territory" gets exactly zero google hits as an exact phrase, I think extending the scope that much would involve significant original research. The notable concept is the last land battle fought on the island of Great Britain. List of wars involving the United Kingdom already exists as a separate article, and I'll add that as a see also. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Then call it exactly what it literally is "Last battle in Great Britain" - Great Britain is well defined and unambiguous. Stop trying to arbitrarily restrict the meaning of "British soil" to only one of a range of possible (and equally valid) definitions. Article titles should be precise and defining. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Article titles don't need to be precise and defining, per WP:COMMONNAME they can have the most recognisable title. (The lead should make the scope crystal clear though). However, perhaps articles shouldn't be based on hyperbolic phrases that get a few google results of questionable value. (Hohum ^@) 20:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

There's a question about whether Germans "invested" the ridge at the Battle of Verrières Ridge, in today's TFA (the first question on the page). Inquiring minds want to know. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

An edit yesterday changed "invested" to "occupied". Opinions welcome at Talk:Battle of Verrières Ridge. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback. Resolved. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The chronic "forgetting" of Romania

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Few days ago, I had the displeasure to see an article in which the Siege of Sevastopol was referred to as a German operation. No, it was a German-Romanian operation. You don't get to leave Romania out. Such crucial was Romania's contribution, that Hitler ordered a special Golden Crimea Shield dedicated to Marshal Antonescu, leader of Romania. Granted Manstein got a golden one too, but that was months later, this special medal clearly originated for the Romanian leader.

My point is, how did this inaccuracy go unaddressed for 5 years, until my specific intervention? Why was this allowed? It's sadly a rather common occurrence, seeing an Axis battle/operation in which Romania played a significant part be addressed as solely German. Even worse, it happens to the Siege of Odessa too sometimes. Despite the fact that, you know, the Germans were under 10% of the Axis force and that they joined in the late parts of the siege. Why do some of you guys appear to have an agenda against my country? Why do you lie by omission about our true contribution? Why?... Torpilorul (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call it an agenda, but it's certainly the kind of thing that's in the news recently :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suspect that, if anything, it is an oversight. As an English-language project, the English Wikipedia has a bias towards English-language topics (in the case of military history, US and UK forces). I can't imagine any feasible reason for leaving Romanian topics out, besides the sore lack of bilingual Romanian/English speakers. Wikipedia is an on-going project, so we have time to get it right. And this is why we are lucky to have editors such as you, Torpilorul: someone with a clear passion for getting the subject correct, and for addressing the oversights and inaccuracies. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I thank you for your kind words but I'll have to disagree with part of your response. I've actually managed to quite easily find tons of material on Google Books related to Romanian military history that is wholly in English, and easy to access. You just have to know clearly what key words to type in the search bar. So you really don't have to be bilingual or anything very special. I'm actually hardly using any non-English sources at all lately, the few times I use a Romanian source nowadays is to confirm something already stated by an English source, or to offer details in addition to what said English source says. In all honesty, I think the main issue is "muh Great Power status". It just seems that people don't care about non-GP countries, even if they're countries which objectively contributed decisively to world history and have unique interesting histories like Romania. Torpilorul (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

In much of the English literature on WW2 Romania is portrayed as a puppet state and its forces are viewed as subservient to the Germans and for the most part 2nd or 3rd rate filling secondary roles.Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

All countries and peoples have unique interesting histories and yes Romania's contribution to conflicts is often ignored or under mentioned on Wikipedia. Thats because every editor is a volunteer and writes about what interests them and with the majority of editors being American or British Romania's contribution to the War on the Eastern Front in WWII for instance is probably not widely known to them and frankly not much they care about. Therefore when someone like yourself arrives it's wonderful as you have the language abilities, sources and willingness to educate. Could I suggest you get on with it and stop complaining about what others have not done? Lyndaship (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I should to that. I'm just tired of being so alone in my quest, that's all. Heck, what are the other Romanians in this Wikiproject doing, sleeping?! Anyway Romania was the furthest thing from a puppet, used its oil on Germany like a man uses a treat bone on a giant dog. Its army not once commanded joint Romanian-German units. But I digress. If English literature want to stay mostly ignorant and dismissive, I'll just keep doing what I've been doing so far: use the good part of English literature as meds against this pestilence. Torpilorul (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it -- which may not be very well -- it is the theme of articles like Rommel: The Desert Fox, in their current form at least, that influential British and German sources, during and after WWII, emphasized qualities of German commanders or (later) German armed forces as having "military genius" or similar, in part to meet political and propaganda needs of the various times. This would naturally tend to promote coverage of German forces, and diminish coverage of their allies.

This alleged misportrayal is apparently being corrected with some vim by more recent historians, so you may eventually see more balanced coverage. Especially if you make a start by using the plentiful sources you mention to improve coverage of the Romanian participation. I'm sure Australian and Canadian participation was not well covered in Wikipedia until certain members of this WikiProject made it their business to see that coverage was improved.

It may interest you to know that old computer games as far back as 1988 were more accurate in portrayal of the quantity of Romanian involvement. Watch carefully in this YouTube video, which shows this computer game as portraying Romanian forces being approximately one seventh of the Axis forces -- in numbers at least -- engaged in the Stalingrad campaign. MPS1992 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope so too. Why the fact that Romanian Generals got the highest number of Knight's Crosses of all Germany's allies by far doesn't debunk this inferiority lie already, I have no idea. Torpilorul (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

why? Because editors like you haven't been here. We want you here not to right the wrong regarding Romania, but to accurately represent the high quality reliable sources in your area of interest. We want you and your effort. I know it can grind you down: I no longer do content, only reviews. But don't let the turkeys get you down. Don't go on a crusade to right wrongs. Know that the hqrs are interested in Romania and their weight and views should be in our articles as appropriate. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Torpilorul I suggest you just get stuck in. We all work on what we want to work on, just be wary of trying to "right great wrongs". WP articles should reflect all the non-fringe views present in reliable sources. Some of them will no doubt be critical of the Romanian war effort etc, and those views also need to be reflected in our articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

List of "weapons" to use against the deriding of Romania

• Romanian generals received the greatest number of German Knight's Crosses of all Germany's allies, twice as much as Italy.
• Marshal Ion Antonescu of Romania was the first non-German to receive the Knight's Cross, and he was also awarded a special pure-gold version of the Crimea shield to emphasize the importance of Romania's contribution to the campaign and Sevastopol's Siege.
• Romania's aces were very good. The second Romanian ace has more kills than the top American ace, for instance.
• Romanian technology, although limited in quantity, produced some very notable weapons. One would be the 75 mm Reșița Model 1943, with a muzzle speed of over 1 km/second. Another notable ground weapon was the Mareșal tank destroyer, which likely inspired the Hetzer. In naval terms, there was the multi-purpose warship Amiral Murgescu and who could forget the elegant and effective IAR-80?
• Back to Romanian generals, Ioan Dumitrache captured Nalchik on 2 November 1942, the farthest point of Axis advance in the Caucasus. Remember forever: It was not Germany, but Romania which plunged the deepest into the belly of the Soviet beast.
• Romania was the only German ally to properly annex Soviet territory, in the form of the Transnistria Governorate. Granted Finland did something similar, but it was a strictly military administration, not an organized civil administrations like Romania's Transnistria or Germany's Reichskommisariats.
• Romania had the largest Axis navy in the Black Sea. It was the most effective navy of the war, being the only one to fight continuously for 3 years without losing any main warship (in Romania's case, destroyers and submarines). At the same time, it sank a dozen Soviet submarines and a large destroyer.

^ Those my friends, are just scratching the surface. If you ever want to actually help me and use one of those, let me know and I'll provide the source, so you won't have to search for it. In the Wiki or Google Books. Torpilorul (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• better weaponry would be material like a peer reviewed journal article titled "Romania's contribution to Army Group South reconsidered," from the last 20 years. Or a monograph titled, Romanian industrial and agricultural production during WWII from a scholarly publisher. Or a chapter in a scholarly edited collection "War myths: the elimination of Germany's allies from the history of the war in the east." Individual talking point aren't as important as how the scholarly literature views the topic. It looks like a great place to start might be Black Sea naval topics? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there literally nothing that can be done with a clueless or biased scholarly medium? This feels pretty hopeless, and I don't like it. People in the West have been quite stuck-up about this for years now. I praise the Lord every time a one off documentary does mention Romanian troops at Sevastopol, and stuff like that. Torpilorul (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I doubt the problem is the scholarly community. All it takes is for one good editor to find the scholarly texts (we are of course allowed to and should use current Romanian scholarship!) and then appropriately expand existing articles. Read the best histories, and edit your findings into existing articles. As far as how this project can help other editors improve, our a class review process rewards editors for great articles; and always tries to check that articles that are reviewed represent the consensus of scholars—not just German fan "historians." The histories are out there, and you can improve articles by using them! Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I shall proceed with my work then. Anyway, at least the West's prevailing ignorance on our WW2 history also has good sides, we can get away with naming around 150 public assets (mostly streets) after overt antisemites and Fascists and even convicted war criminals. I made a full list in this sense, based on Wiki categories and Google Maps. It's in my Sandbox, if you care to check it out. Torpilorul (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a seriously non-neutral agenda if the list of claims at the top of this sub-section is anything to go by. Wikipedia is not a place to glorify Romania's role in World War II (which, I'd note, also included a key role in the Holocaust [77] [78]). Please make sure you abide by WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• But they're not claims tho. They're easily-verifiable facts. Kindly do your research please. Also, yes, the Holocaust was a shameful act and I regret that our land forces perpetrated it. That's why I'd rather stick mostly to the Navy, no Jews ever killed by Romanian warships. Torpilorul (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That seems highly unlikely given that many citizens of the USSR were Jewish. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Well...probably, maybe there were ethnic Jews among the Soviet crewmen we killed, but anyway those were fighters, they weren't massacred, they died in battle. Also, we almost never carried out coastal bombardments. It's really the Soviets you wanna look at for any "Black Sea Holocaust". Struma... Torpilorul (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Torpilorul all you are doing with this thread is flagging yourself for attention due to concerns of non-neutral editing. Please read WP:NPOV and adhere to it with your work on the Romanian involvement in WWII. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• You couldn't be more wrong, friend. You still don't get that this is not about me? One of the main reasons people don't know about Romania is the lack of conversation. Well, now that I started a conversation, I will keep it going as much as I can. Until I no longer receive replies, or it is archived. Concerns mean nothing, I am doing nothing objectively wrong. Anyone who's seen my work can confirm that. Torpilorul (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review request for Montana-class battleship

Montana-class battleship

I'm opening a peer review request, as it has been nine years since the last one, and in the past year in particular, I've added a ton of new information and corrected some misconceptions about the class. In particular, I heavily expanded the armor section and also expanded the design history section. Many (perhaps most?) of these edits were done when logged off. In any case, I referred heavily to well regarded book sources such as Sumrall, Friedman, Garzke & Dulin, and INRO publications in order to reduce the amount of citations to internet sources, many of which are tertiary. Hopefully all the additions are up to FA standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Armoured Car ID help

"German Armored Car"

"Austin Armored Car"

The official text to an american photo from 29 october 1918 says "German Armored Car", but I couldnt find a match. There seems to be a resemblance to the back of a Peerless Armoured Car, but our article doesnt mention a WW1 use of a Peerless with turrets. Any ideas? Alexpl (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Germany used a number of armored cars with turrets itself, like e.g. the Ehrhardt E-V/4 and the Büssing A5P. But your picture is categorized as a Peerless car, and in parts closely resembles with e.g. this postwar one. However it could, of course, either be a captured one or simply be mislabeled as Peerless. So still not sure ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, this had two turrets, which narrows it down to very few options. It´s either a Austin Armoured Car or a Peerless, as they used the same body. I categorized it on commons as "Peerless" because of the rear wheel beeing so far in back. But on a second thought, the wheel might just have been thrown backwards when the car blew up. Alexpl (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Not my specialist subject by any means but I think I would go for an Austin. Peerless have a long overhang at the back, because the chassis was longer than the Austin but the superstructure was the same. Looking at the photo, there is a storage box above the rear wheel, which seems to be a feature of Austins rather than Peerless in photos of the time. Also, the markings show a two-tone scheme with a "T" painted on the turret. Oddly, there is an online reconstruction with this scheme stating it was typical of Russian Austins. Where did this Germans (if it was genuinely German) get this vehicle? Monstrelet (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure looks like an Austin to me, though I am by no means an expert either. As for where the Germans got it, it seems a fairly safe assumption that it was captured on the eastern front - the Germans used captured vehicles frequently. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done: Austin by vote. Ok, "Austin" seems most reasonable. Thanks everybody!

Re: 11th United States Colored Infantry

I've noticed over the last few days, that someone has moved the "Colored" Regiments etc, to the Dyer Compendium format to for example 11th United States Colored Infantry format. Should it also include "Regiment" etc at the end? Adamdaley (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying here Adam. Do you mean that they have been moved to a title without "Regiment" at the end from one that had it? Of course, they should be at the common name used in sources, whatever that might be. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

For example, take the 30th Connecticut Infantry Regiment (Colored). I moved that from being (African Descent), to being (Colored). Now, I've noticed that someone has been moving certain articles that went from a particular state that had changed designation to the following in this case "31st United States Colored Infantry". Should it remain as state (Colored) regiments or should be changed to the designation of the United States (Where it doesn't have Regiment etc). Just as "31st United States Colored Infantry". Adamdaley (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Bad example of the "31st United States Colored Infantry Regiment" I did that, and now I am confused if all the one's that have been moved to without "regiment" should have it. But Dyer has only have it as for example "31st U.S.C.T." Adamdaley (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, is the Dyer Compendium a principal reliable source on the naming of these regiments? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It's the only source for the Union states of Battalions, Regiments etc. However, the Dyer pages I have open in front of me at the moment, it says "Florida Volunteers" then the first is "1st Regiment Cavalry". I've been trying to get various states for example "1st Florida Cavalry Regiment" etc. Now people are moving them and it's hard to keep track of what is what and where. When there are articles not even made of up all the men. Adamdaley (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, to have ALL Union States according to Dyer is not an easy task. Because other people will want to keep it the names as they are. The ACW articles of the Union States, are a complete mess. It's rather difficult to do them all by one person, without being by someone who differs differently. Adamdaley (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Most contemporary sources such as the Official Records use the name of the regiment, ex 80th U.S. Colored Infantry, etc., without the designation regiment at the end. That it is a regiment is implied in the source. Historians such as Edward G. Longacre have book titles such as 4th United States Colored Infantry, so I think it is acceptable to omit regiment.[79] As a result, I personally would only use 'regiment' at the end of Civil War regiment articles if the state also had a battalion with the same number, to avoid confusion. Kges1901 (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

There are some States where, they only raised a "Battalion" or a Regiment of Cavalry and then only a "Battalion" of Infantry. Adamdaley (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The 11th United States Colored Infantry also is the 11th United States Colored Infantry Regiment, the 11th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry, the 11th U.S.C.T. and the 11th Regiment, U.S.C.T. etc etc - none of those are wrong, just differnet ways to refer to it. Within Dyer´s Compendium itself you´ll find several versions used simultaneously. In many writings Regiment frequently is omitted because it is the standard unit type and denomination in all of those cases for the civil war, as simple as that, thus just adding the denomination if it is different (like Battalion). Just like Volunteer or Volunteers is included or not. Therefore regiment often is omitted on wikipedia as well but this isn´t ideal as it is, in the end, missing an elemental part of the unit designation and makes room for errors. Of course the omission wouldn´t be a real-life issue unless there could be other units with the same name or meaning ... which became an issue once units were denominated as U.S. units and independently numbered infantry divisions became frequent, thus making for example 1st U.S. Infantry unclear as being either the regiment or the division. As for correctness in the title I´d be in favour or regiment staying part of it. ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

So it's safe to say that Dyer Compendium should be the default naming for the Company's, Battalions, Regiments etc where ALL the Union States are concerned? Adamdaley (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I would append "Regiment" to it for clarity and consistency. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, he is but a single source showing some ways to put it. I think it logical to keep the unit type (like regiment) as part of the article title as it is both a correct form and a clear distinction to not mix up stuff (like, as said, for example 1st Infantry could reasonably mean both 1st Infantry Division and 1st Infantry Regiment - less for the civil war but in general and with many more unit variants available). I merely brought up Dyer because you did so in your original post and he makes the case as he uses several variants of the same names himself. ...GELongstreet (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Guns in Japanese culture

Apologies if I'm doing this in the wrong place (I haven't edited Wikipedia for a long time). I was listening to this 7 year old podcast episode. They discuss the myth that Japan "gave up" firearms in the Edo period, and trace the myth back to a book by Noel Perrin that is roundly derided in academic circles. They also mention this WP article and how often it cites the offending book. Naturally I had a look, and was surprised to see that this hadn't been fixed in 7 years. I don't have the background to judge whether the podcasters are right (although they seem better informed than Perrin), so I can't do it myself. I thought I'd leave a note here to see if anybody can pick this up. risk (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You might want to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan too. (Hohum ^@) 17:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like one for WP Firearms, which you can post to here, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura}

A-Class review for List of torpedo cruisers of Italy needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for List of torpedo cruisers of Italy; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinions requested for rename of Thai Underwater Demolition Assault Unit

Opinions requested on proposed renaming of Underwater Demolition Assault Unit to Thai Navy SEAL at Talk:Underwater_Demolition_Assault_Unit#Requested_move_4_July_2018.--Melbguy05 (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

HMS Rodney (1809)

Was HMS Rodney sold to the Spanish, and was she lost in the 1846 Havana hurricane? From The Standard, 5 November 1846 "The ditto [Spanish] Rodney (late Her Majestey's Ship) drove considerably". Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, but our article doesn't mention that Rodney was renamed HMS Greenwich in 1827. Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I've now got two separate sources naming Rodney as a Spanish Navy ship, ex HMS. Have added her to the list of shipwrecks in October 1846, but not added to article yet. Would like a little more evidence first. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

WWII Unknown Boat Type - any help - any use if uploaded?

I've been rummaging through old stuff of my father's. I found a photo of a boat. It's obviously a high speed boat, with a white ensign (i.e Royal Navy). As far as I know, dad was on MTBs in the Caribbean in WWII. Not sure if this boat fits that bill. On the reverse is "ML 1360-63 : U.S.Navy - Contract NObs-243 : Q 1362" and professional photographer's stamp "WM EDGAR JOHN & ASSOCIATES INC., MILTON POINT, RYE. N.Y.". small photo can be see HERE. If it looks useful, I'll try and see if I can get it on commons, either as copyright expired, or US Navy. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That looks a lot like a Harbour Defence Motor Launch - from the number on the site, it's likely HDML 1362. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a Motor Gun Boat unsure what flotilla or unit it may have belonged to though. This [80]looks very similar to the pic you provided. Irondome (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I will defer to Nick-D's observation. My pic is too heavily armed, and it has only one rectangular porthole on the main upperworks,, unlike yours and Nicks, which has two. The build company verification would clinch it. Irondome (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see - it's not a photgrapher's stamp, it's the maker. Looks like it could be useful, I'll upload the big one later. Thanks all. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 12:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Now on commons File:Q 1362.png Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

HDML seems about right since they had pennant numbers starting with Q. [81] De728631 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I could not find any ref to "Q 1362" boat, yet it's clearly painted twice on the side - which why I came here. I suspect this is not long out of the factory when it was taken. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

See also this book: ML 1001-1600. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Armored half-tracks: tanks or cars?

Greetings. I recently made an article on Romanian armored cars of WW2. In the near future, I plan to also do a similar article for Romanian tanks (and by tanks I mean tracked AFVs in general). But...where do armored half-tracks come in? Romania had 27 Sd.Kfz. 250 and Sd.Kfz. 251 armored half tracks, do I save them for the tanks article or should I add them to the armored cars one? Torpilorul (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't putting the tanks in the same article and renaming it Romanian armored fighting vehicles of World War II solve the problem? Srnec (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Go here[[82]]. This is the article with the relevant sections to be worked on. In addition, this article probably carries the most current WP material that covers your interests, so it's a useful guide. Follow the links too, as it covers naval and aviation topics. It also has a comprehensive list of campaigns and battles. Irondome (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

the answer lays in how the highest quality authoritative sources deal without Romanian armour. If they deal in a single AFV category, follow them. Correspondingly if they deal in three categories of tracks, armoured wheeled vehicles, and half tracks follow that. If they categorise by transport versus combat follow that. Follow the organisation present in the best quality sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Srnec. Have just one AFV article/list like British armoured fighting vehicles of World War II. You can always split the article/list later if it becomes too large. I wouldn't imagine it would though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I thought a bit, and I know what to do. I will do a full AFV article. I will categorize them on periods: AFVs owned when Romania joined the war in '41, things we got from the Jerries, and stuff that we captured, which are mostly Soviet (we did get a handful of M3 Lees too). Then, after all this text is good and done, I'll make a list section for a full picture list based on actual vehicle categories. Boy, this sounds like a lot of work. I'll try to get to it in a few days from now. Torpilorul (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A "full picture list" might be controversial, depending on interpretations of WP:GALLERY and existing practice in other articles. MPS1992 (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed infobox for multi-branch or multi-nation service

As a long-time template editor, I have proposed to create a multi-service variation of "Template:Infobox military person" to list multiple service periods, branches or allegiance sets, separated by infobox section headers as if multiple offices held. Join discussion at infobox: "Template_talk:Infobox_military_person #Need variation for multi-branch service". -Wikid77 (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

How controversial is it really to be an admirer of Ion Antonescu?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I ask because this guy is controversial for being an admirer of Ion Antonescu. Thing is, I am too. Yes yes, I did read all the history about him, know his goods and bads, I won't deny the existence of or apologize for his bads, but at the same time I do believe his goods trump his bads. Even if by a narrow margin. Anyway, that's more or less just my opinion.

My question is, would this affect me as a contributor to the Wiki? Will the community still treat me fairly due to my views or beliefs? Because I have a section on my profile page in which I acknowledge my support for him which basically anyone can read at any time. Basically, is it safe for me to be me on the Wiki? I just want to make sure. Torpilorul (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that your user page includes the line "I'm not a denialist - he did kill all those Jews. But those Jews are simply not enough to sway my liking for him". By "those Jews" you are referring to the murder of 380,000–400,000 people. What a loathsome attitude. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Given your formed opinion of him I think you would find it impossible to be neutral in any article concerning him. Best to steer clear and only edit on articles you have no strong opinions on Lyndaship (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I would hope that you would be appropriately treated by the WP community based on what you actually do. So far as WP is concerned, your opinion is irrelevant, it is what the reliable sources say that is important. If you maintain a neutral point of view and use reliable sources, then I think you will probably be ok. But your commitment to a neutral point of view has already been drawn into question by your stated admiration for him. If you try to promote a particular point of view, whitewash Antonescu's crimes against humanity, use sources that are unreliable or cherry-pick or misrepresent sources, then I expect you will quickly be sanctioned. Given that Antonescu oversaw policies that saw the murdering of at least a quarter of a million Jews and Roma people, I think you will need to make sure that this aspect of his life is properly covered and given appropriate weight wherever you edit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Rest assured, I will not let my personal opinions alter what sources say. And yes, I am very much aware of my bias. But I'm doing my best efforts to not let it interfere with my work. I was simply inquiring if there is a possibility for my work be invalidated over "wrong-think". Glad to see this will most likely not be the case. As for neutrality, really, you're addressing the wrong point. More often than not, only the fact that he took part in the Holocaust is mentioned, his good deeds for Romania are not. I will not "whitewash" his crimes, but I will most certainly put into question the legitimacy of his accusers. The Soviet Union was an illegitimate unwanted regime of occupation which as far as I'm concerned merely imposed its point of view. But I digress, feel free to contact my talk page if you wish to discuss this with me further.

And Nick-D, bro, to each their own. You can go ahead and see only the Jews that were killed during his administration, but I'll go ahead and see the good he did for my country, which is the reason I as a Romanian stand by him, and I'm not alone. Torpilorul (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

As this has carried across into article space, I've lodged a report at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor POV pushing on Romania's contribution to World War II and espousing extremist views. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

photo of Edwin D. Patrick

Digging through the National Archives stuff on Commons, I think I found a WW1 photo of WW2 general Edwin D. Patrick and put it in the infobox. The unit "14th machine gun bn." seems to match the later generals biography, but a second opinion would be welcome. Is that the same man? Alexpl (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• The photograph is of him. Patrick commanded the 14th Machine Gun Battalion during the war. Name exactly matches from the original NARA photo. Kges1901 (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Allright. I´m just not good at comparing young and old faces. Had the same problem with young Joseph Stilwell. Alexpl (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done: biography matches National Archives caption. Alexpl (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

List of wars involving Samoa

I came across List of wars involving Samoa (created by Anonyymimies) at WP:NPP.

There are several problems with the article as written. It is entirely unreferenced; it conflates battles with wars (Bombardment of Upolu isn't a war), and it's not clear which of these involved predecessor states of the current Independent State of Samoa, as opposed to American Samoa. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move discussion needing more input

G'day all, There is a RM at Talk:Albanian_Kingdom_(1939–43)#Requested move 10 July 2018 that needs more input. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternate flags of NATO

The official color and ratio of the Flag of NATO is Pantone 280 and 3:4. However, an alternate flag with a 3:5 ratio and lighter color is used referring to "NATO flag" in a 2016 Visual Identity Guidelines and "Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014" with a small variation in the size of the star.

This flag uses an alternate color for the blue used in the flag of NATO and presented on page 14 of the 2016 Visual Identity Guidelines published by NATO [83]. The flag uses a RGB 0-73-144 color instead of Pantone 280, and is presented in a 3:5 ratio instead of 3:4. The particular color for blue is is also found on page 6 of the Visual Identity Guidelines document used in NATO logos.

The flag with a slightly smaller star also appears on page 8 of the "Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014" [84]. The color is also used for the logo on the front page of the "Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014" and the background color for text on the front page.

The use of the flag is rare on NATO documents because of a recommendation noted on page 14 of the 2016 Visual Identity Guidelines which notes "Although the NATO flag is a recognisable symbol of the Alliance worldwide, it is never to be used as a signature on NATO publications, for other communication purposes or as a replacement for the NATO logo. The NATO flag can be used for illustrative purposes." However, although this can't be shown, the proper flag was also absent in all the recent documents I have looked at. [85]

My suggestion is to note the use of this alternate flag in a separate section of the article, possibly "alternative color and ratio."

• 
  2016 Visual Identity Guidelines
• 
  Secretary General’s Annual Report 2014

475847394d347339 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note, there is a whole lot of background that should be read on the talk page. Garuda28 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not wholly familiar with Wikipedia policies and mistakenly noted pictures of flags. However, I regret it because such references conflict with WP:ANALYSIS. 475847394d347339 (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of the initial post here, down to and including the two images (the paragraph beginning "The official color and ratio of the Flag of NATO ..." excepted) is a straight copypaste of Talk:Flag of NATO#Alternate flags of NATO, please see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Dutch frigate needs identification

Can anyone identify the Dutch frigate "Prince of Orange" lost at Rammekens Castle, Zeeland on 17 May 1847. Presumably her correct name is Prins van Oranje, but when was she launched? Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a 60-gun frigate built in 1828, launched in 1840 as Waal, renamed Prins van Oranje in 1844, and surplused in 1896. Could that be it? [86][87] Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it. Often vessels reported wrecked were salvaged, repaired and returned to service without that being reported. I'll add a wikilink to the list. Thanks, Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Flag of NATO needing input

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Flag of NATO#RfC about the inclusion of an alternative color and ratio of the flag of NATO used in two recent documents that could use the input of multiple different users. Garuda28 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

American Cvil War Proposal: African American or Colored?

I would like to propose to have either "African American" or "Colored" at the end of "Battalions", "Regiments" etc. Which should it be to avoid confusion? Would like the following to take part GELongstreet and anyone else. Adamdaley (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Adam: I may be misunderstanding your post, but it sounds like you're proposing to change the names of individual American Civil War regiments from their actual historic (original) names to names that may never have been used for many of those individual regiments just for the purpose of standardizing their formatting across Wikipedia. If this is what you're asking, I would have to stay that I strongly disagree with what you're proposing because this could actually make things more confusing rather than less for researchers. As you can see from this explanation by the U.S. National Archives, even the historians and archivists at NARA have not standardized the names of American Civil War military units in this way: "Black Soldiers in the Civil War: Compiled Service Records."

From my reading of your last several posts, it seems that you're really struggling to understand the naming conventions of American Civil War regiments (particularly those in which African-American soldiers served). If you haven't yet done so, you might want to read this excellent NARA article, "Black Civil War Soldiers: Preserving the Legacy of the United States Colored Troops", which provides an excellent chronological overview of when the various "Colored"/African-American units were formed and named. (If my summary above was not your intent with your proposal, my apologies for misunderstanding. Please provide a clearer explanation of what you are asking of Mihilst members.) Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m done. Finished. I’ve tried to get all the mixed Company, Battalion, Regiments etc, to fall under a consistent naming convention. Of course, there are so many people on Wikipedia, all have their own opinions and they say things should be done a certain way. I guess, I’ll do the three Light Batteries for Connecticut and not try to bother with the naming convention, because I don’t see anyone agreeing. Why do I bother with it? Can’t get anything right with Rudolf Abel, now I can’t get anything done right with the American Civil War. Adamdaley (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Adamdaley: I'm sorry you're feeling frustrated, and understand that American Civil War history can be a complex, confusing mess at times. As a native of Pennsylvania, I grew up with it - not just studying it in school every year, but spending free time with my parents, siblings and friends driving to and walking around many of the battlefields from the time I was a small child. So, I come at it from an entirely different perspective than yours. As writer and editor myself, though, I can also understand your desire to standardize information. The problem is that, by doing the type of standardization that you were proposing, you would potentially have been creating historical inaccuracies in encyclopedia (Wikipedia) articles that many American children (and other children worldwide) use as resources for their school work. (And not just children. Wikipedia articles about Civil War regiments are also used by adult family history researchers/genealogists, Civil War reenactors, et. al.) As much as I believe that standardization is a worthy goal, historical accuracy is, in my humble opinion, much more important (particularly for the American Civil War because we're currently in a period where there are people in the United States who are actively engaged in promoting revisionist versions of slavery, the root causes of the war, etc.). I hope you'll continue to be engaged because Wikipedia needs good writers and editors who care about making each article the best possible article it can be (accurate and well cited, as well as enjoyable to read). Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

G'day Adamdaley, don't give up, your work is appreciated. If the reliable sources vary, we use what each individual unit is called in the majority of reliable sources, ie its common name. This is bound to vary a bit between regiments raised in different states and even within each state, given the way units were raised during the ACW. So they are not all going to fit one schema. I would also have thought that "African-American" was an uncommon term in those times, but I'm Australian, so not up on how that has evolved over time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

As other have said, we go with what they were called, it's unfortunate that the times they were a racist but that is the way it is. I get that it may seem confusing, so we should then explain to the reader this oddity of naming. Now can we have an example of a US regiment called "African American" at the time? Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The Dyer Compendium uses both "African Descent" and "Colored" for the African American population of the United States at that time all the way through to the publication in Des Moines in 1908. MarcusBritish has an incomplete list of the Union Regiments. I’ve tried to update it somewhat. All I need the format that the Union side used and I can do a complete list on my subpage. Adamdaley (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Not all people of "African Descent" served in the union army, so this does not help us. Can we have some examples of the names the regiments were called at the time? Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The use of "African Descent" by Dyer was to refer to those "Colored" Regiments. So it's referring those who were "African American", which is now the official political name of their background. I can't put into words, any easier. Adamdaley (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Errr so it calls them (say) the 38th United States "African Descent" Infantry Regiment? What were the regiments called, not how ere its members described, what were the official name of the regiments?Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

For example, the state of Alabama. It only has one Union Cavalry Regiment which would have been an all Caucasian Regiment, the 1st Regiment Siege Artillery (African Descent), as well as 4x 1st Regiment Infantry (African Descent) all the way to the fourth Infantry Regiment of the African Descent. Adamdaley (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

So its African decent, not African American (also to add to the confusion the 1st Regiment siege artillery (AD) was also the Sixth U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery). So those that were called "African decent" we call "African decent" and those called "Colored" we call "colored". But it does seem that whilst US troops (federal) were called colored those form Alabama were called African Decent. Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not limited to Alabama. The men raised from Arkansas it has the following: 1st Regiment Cavalry, 2d Regiment Cavalry, 3rd Regiment Cavalry, 4th Regiment Cavalry, 1st Battery Light Artillery, 1st Battery Light Artillery (African Descent), 1st Battalion Infantry, 1st Regiment Infantry (African Descent), 2nd Regiment Infantry, 2nd Regiment Infantry (African Descent). Etc etc. Several Regiments have been redesignated to the "United States Colored Troops". Adamdaley (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

African-American is a term that is, to my knowledge, not used in the original unit names. Problem with the unit names simply is that there often were differences in the naming conventions and those units were often renamed one or more times. So we have e.g. Colored, African Descent, Native Guards, Corps d'Afrique and then the U.S. Colored Troops - the later finally unifying almost all relevant units in the Union Army in a single naming sceme. Avoiding confusion is not always possible as it is the American Civil War and that was a pretty confusing thing. So there are cases where we could more or less choose which name to use for the unit but African-American is, in my opinion, not a correct option. ...GELongstreet (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

My error for typing African-American. I hadn't noticed it until my last posting here. According to the Dyer Compendiums, the following were used: "African Descent", "U.S. Corps De Afrique" as well as the "United States Colored Troops". I just thought that Dyer had chosen the default naming for all the raised groups. Adamdaley (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Per the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (the most trusted authority on this subject), here are a few examples of the actual naming conventions that were used:

• 55th Massachusetts Infantry (Colored)
• 5th Massachusetts Cavalry (Colored)
• 1st United States Colored Cavalry, 2nd United States Colored Cavalry, 3rd United States Colored Cavalry, 4th United States Colored Cavalry, 5th United States Colored Cavalry, and 6th United States Colored Cavalry
• 1st United States Colored Infantry
• 1st South Carolina Volunteers (Colored)
• 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment (Colored) -

As you can see the naming conventions differed by regiment and by state (as well as for state vs. national). In addition, per the U.S. National Archives:

• "In the fall of 1862 there were at least three Union regiments of African Americans raised in New Orleans, Louisiana: the First, Second, and Third Louisiana Native Guard. These units later became the First, Second, and Third Infantry, Corps d'Afrique, and then the Seventy-third, Seventy-fourth, and Seventy-fifth United States Colored Infantry (USCI). The First South Carolina Infantry (African Descent) was not officially organized until January 1863; however, three companies of the regiment were on coastal expeditions as early as November 1862. They would become the Thirty-third USCI. Similarly, the First Kansas Colored Infantry (later the Seventy-ninth [new] USCI) was not mustered into service until January 1863, even though the regiment had already participated in the action at Island Mound, Missouri, on October 27, 1862. These early unofficial regiments received little federal support, but they showed the strength of African Americans' desire to fight for freedom.

• "The first official authorization to employ African Americans in federal service was the Second Confiscation and Militia Act of July 17, 1862. This act allowed President Abraham Lincoln to receive into the military service persons of African descent....

• "In late January 1863, Governor John Andrew of Massachusetts received permission to raise a regiment of African American soldiers. This was the first black regiment to be organized in the North. The pace of organizing additional regiments, however, was very slow. In an effort to change this, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton sent Gen. Lorenzo Thomas to the lower Mississippi valley in March to recruit African Americans. Thomas was given broad authority. He was to explain the administration's policy regarding these new recruits, and he was to find volunteers to raise and command them. Stanton wanted all officers of such units to be white, but that policy was softened to allow African American surgeons and chaplains. By the end of the war, there were at least eighty-seven African American officers in the Union army. Thomas's endeavor was very successful, and on May 22, 1863, the Bureau of Colored Troops was established to coordinate and organize regiments from all parts of the country. Created under War Department General Order No. 143, the bureau was responsible for handling "all matters relating to the organization of Colored Troops." The bureau was directly under the Adjutant General's Office, and its procedures and rules were specific and strict. All African American regiments were now to be designated United States Colored Troops (USCT). At this time there were some African American regiments with state names and a few regiments in the Department of the Gulf designated as Corps d'Afrique. All these were ultimately assimilated into the USCT, even though a small number of the regiments retained their state designations."

For the sake of historical accuracy, the names of American Civil War units should not be standardized. The name used for title of each regimental article should be the actual name of the regiment that was used by that regiment during its service in the American Civil War. (And for a regiment which had multiple names, it should be the name which was most commonly used for that regiment.) 47thPennVols (talk)

47thPennVols – I've renamed several as "Colored". So I'm right in a few of the naming. I'm more than willing to have a complete listing on my subpage. I just need to know what is the right format, because I know of nobody on Wikipedia having a complete listing. Adamdaley (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with 47thPennVols and others that the names of the regiment should not be retroactively standardized. With these articles, the predominant historical designation should be used, and redirects created for other historical names, so that people interested in these units can easily find them. If necessary, since the colored units were made up of those who would now be considered African-American, the phrase African-American can be included in the lead sentence. Kges1901 (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

ALL the Companies, Battalions, Regiments should be redone. Any existing "redirects", deleted. In those Regiments, etc, have both names in the Article. Adamdaley (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with 47thPennVols and others. However, I believe that regiments should end with "Regiment" for consistency with military unit naming. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what´s the issue with redirects? Why should existing redirects be deleted? ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I also had a similar question, GELongstreet. Also, was there a recent discussion among American Civil War task force members or the larger Milhist group about renaming American military units with a consensus reached to begin changing every page title over to a standardized format of some sort, Kges1901, GELongstreet, Peacemaker67? I ask: a.) because I don't remember seeing anything like that on the general ACW or Milhist discussion pages, and b.) @Adamdaley: has been redirecting a significant number of pages related to the American Civil War (most recently all of the Illinois volunteer regiment pages with variants of this edit summary message, "‎Adamdaley moved page Talk:155th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment to Talk:155th Illinois Infantry Regiment: Moving back to the former name. This has been discussed at: WP:MILHIST. Sorry." Can someone provide me with the link on Milhist for where the renaming/redirect discussion took place? 47thPennVols (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Adam is likely referring to this discussion, Re: 11th United States Colored Infantry, but there was no consensus there on whether volunteer should be omitted. Volunteer Infantry and Infantry were used interchangeably in contemporary sources such as the Official Records, although the Report of the Illinois Adjutant General used Infantry Illinois Volunteers instead of Volunteer Infantry. Kges1901 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I only said deleted so Wikipedia doesn't have redundant redirects. I'm sure there is a sh*tload of stuff, not necessary on Wikipedia. Just make more space in the end. Adamdaley (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to bed, it's 9:30 pm here. I'll continue this tomorrow. Adamdaley (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• WP:Redirects are cheap. Kges1901 (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to opine on standardization, but can I thank Adamdaley for raising this? I had no idea there was so much variation in the historical names, so I've learned a bit just from the question coming up. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

My 2 cents - stick to the historical names. Note that in general (not here, where there are other reasons to stick to the original name) - colored is non-whote - and wider than just African American - e.g. a Native American could be described as colored (or being part of a group of colored) - the association with black came at a late stage of use - changing colored to black (or African American) is something that should be generally avoided and done with great care.Icewhiz (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Many regiments started with a "state" number and designation (African Descent, Corps d'Afrique, others) and later were renumbered and redesignated as "US Colored Troops" or one of the many permutations of that designation. The 54th and 55th Massachusetts and some others were unusual in never being redesignated as USCT. Gladstone, United States Colored Troops 1863-1867 gives a list of all USCT (he prefers US Colored Infantry) units in the war including their previous designations where applicable on pp. 101-107; however, this list does not include units that never received a USCT designation. Once a naming convention is decided, I am strongly in favor of retaining or creating redirects for other historically used unit names; that's one of the main applications of redirects. RobDuch (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

We’ve pretty much discussed what is the problem. We now should focus on how to fix it. I would like to start with the state of Alabama (...for the Union). Alabama had the following:

1st Regiment Cavalry
1st Regiment Siege Artillery (African Descent)
1st Regiment Infantry (African Descent)
2nd Regiment Infantry (African Descent)
3rd Regiment Infantry (African Descent)
4th Regiment Infantry (African Descent)

Yes, I know the Dyer Compendiums is only one source. This is the best source, I have. I’ve had a brief look at the Archives (of America) and I am confused on how to read it fully and to comprehend how it works. I also want to give an example let’s say that Alabama had a 5th Regiment Infantry (African Descent) and with no real information which would make it a red link. All unmade articles for each state should be done this way so other users know they do not currently exist. Adamdaley (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Adam it would help if you linked those units to their current article, where there is one. That will help the discussion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

1st Regiment Cavalry
1st Regiment Siege Artillery (African Descent)
1st Regiment Infantry (African Descent)
2nd Regiment Infantry (African Descent)
3rd Regiment Infantry (African Descent)
4th Regiment Infantry (African Descent)
My example of the non-existent 5th Regiment Infantry (African Descent) where it should show the non-existent and future articles of the 5th. Adamdaley (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you kindly elaborate on what your proposal is? I looked at the Alabama colored infantry units and apparently the official War Department synonym list has [88] 1st Alabama Infantry (African Descent). Dyer uses both colored and African descent, colored in the regiment's own entry and African Descent in the 55th USCT entry. The Official Records has colored. [89] Kges1901 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm compelled to go with the Dyer Compendiums. Basically, I want to start it at the state of Alabama. For those articles that have not yet been created there should be red-linked so users know it needs to be created. Adamdaley (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I am incorrect, but are you proposing to redlink regimental articles not yet created on the list articles? That can definitely be done. Kges1901 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is objecting to what we should call the "African Americans"/"Colored"/"USCT". What other BIG source apart from the Dyer Compendiums is there that I can obtain or look at. Adamdaley (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we title them based on what they are called in RS. But in this case, it appears that many regiments had a number of names during their existence, and even within Dyer. It seems to me that they should be at the final title they had when they were disbanded, with redirects from the earlier ones. This still won't fit a universal method of naming, because, as is clear from the above discussion, some regiments did not end up as "USCT", but had different final names that don't fit that scheme. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• As far as the Dyer Compendiums are concerned, it has "African Descent", "Corps de Afrique" and "U.S. Colored Troops". Somewhere it might even have a fourth “Native”. 47thPennVols gets his/her information from the U.S. Archives and that is not as easy to understand like our Australian Archives. I’m willing to team up with 47thPennVols to have a complete listing of their default naming of all Batteries, Companies, Regiments etc on a subpage of mine. Then there is the numerous and countless redirects that need to be sorted out and unfortunately, I am not a WikiProject Admin. Adamdaley (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• @47thPennVols: – Are you willing to help compile a list of all the Union states and their raised units on my subpage? Adamdaley (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess we can't get a subpage of a "trial" of what the volunteers to see how it would look like? Adamdaley (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Adamdaley: I created User:Kges1901/Union regiments to track assessments, if that's what you desire. Kges1901 (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Kges1901: Technically (and legally) speaking, my ACW Regiments list should have been copied with its full history or be linked to the original page to provide sufficient attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN and terms of the GFDL, and a "thank you" or some courteous form of credit in your comment above would not have gone amiss, rather than taking full credit for creating a copied list. However, since I've long abandoned work on these articles, because there are simply far too many and I no longer have the time or patience for extensive editing on Wikipedia, I can either surrender my copyright (although I'm not sure Wikipedia offers a clear means of doing that) or you can place an appropriate {{copied}} template on your version of the list to provide relevant attribution. I'm retaining my list for prosterity for the time being, but will probably end up deleting it in due course, after which attribution will no longer be an issue. No reflection on yourself, just that this is the second time I've had an extensive amount of work copied directly from my user pages without an ounce of credit or thanks, and it was the first time that caused me to lose total faith in Wikipedia and its community, because there was no reasonable show of support from MILHIST members or the project as a whole even though my rights had clearly been violated. Basically, I felt raped and ignored. This time I'm willing to show more patience simply because I don't care about ACW regiments anymore. But in future, please keep in mind that when copying other editor's work you are obliged to provide proper attribution. If anything, it's respectful. Thanks — Marcus^(talk) 12:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• @MarcusBritish: I apologize for not following the procedures. A sincere thanks for your creation of the original work page, and for being willing to do the heavy lifting on this so many years ago. Kges1901 (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• No worries. Good luck with that rather laborious amount of articles in need of attention. — Marcus^(talk) 14:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've started a Dyers' version of Units on my subpage. Still need to know the exact name of these Units. @47thPennVols:, are you willing to help with this? Adamdaley (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Would the National Parks Service be another source on how to name the Units? Adamdaley (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that it really much matters what they're called here, so long as they have the size in the title. The main thing is that there must be redirects from all of the other titles used so people can find the unit regardless. If y'all want to follow Dyer or standardize on the USCT format, either is fine; we don't need to be consistent here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to go with Dyer or the National Parks Service. I'm just concerned that since I'm not an Admin, I cannot sort out the numerous redirects... Perfection is coming out for me and that's related to my "illness". Adamdaley (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Scottish Naval and Military Academy

This establishment existed in Edinburgh for most of the C19, and sent over a thousand young men into the army, navy, or East India Company. Those associated with it include Henry Yule, James R. Ballantyne, John McDouall Stuart, and Patrick Lindesay. Apparently it stood where the Caledonian Hotel now does. The National Museum of Scotland holds a medal. Other sources attest to its history. An interesting non-RS 1835 overview is here, listing presidents, trustees, and even the king as patron. Does anyone feel like making an article of it? Or could you advise me where better to post this request? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to modify our A-Class review requirements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

G'day all, after discussion amongst a few of the @WP:MILHIST coordinators: team, I would like to propose a change to our A-Class review process to explicitly require a source review to be conducted. The current ArbCom case about the German War Effort has highlighted the fact that some sub-par sources have got through our review processes in that area in the past. In recent months, some editors have been doing source reviews as part of their reviews at ACR, on top of the three supports and image review, and I am proposing that this becomes a formal requirement. Explicitly requiring a source review will bring our A-Class review process a little closer to the Featured Article standard, but shouldn't slow down our processes significantly. Please advise whether you support, oppose or are neutral on this proposal. For such a significant change, it would be good to get a strong consensus. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support: I think this is a constructive response to the concerns that have been raised, and it will help set articles up for success at FAC, where it is already a requirement. I am concerned about the potential to slow the process down further, but feel that the long term benefits will outweigh the disadvantages. Some good guidance about source reviewing at FAC can be found here, for those who are interested: Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Really, it should have always been there given the intent of ACR as being little short of FAC in its stringency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Anything to improve the scholarship of Wiki articles is a good thing (although I'm allergic to A class reviews). Keith-264 (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Reasonable. But you open a field of conflict which can get quite complex. Alexpl (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• G'day Alexpl, I agree it can get contentious when questionable and biased sources are used (as highlighted in the ArbCom case), but they can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• And this will provide a way to have such conversations among editors with expertise in the subject area and relevant sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That would be nice - but on the german Wikipedia, a writers rating of events is usually challenged by a wikipedia author by bringing forward another source. That can be difficult to solve and tends to get toxic. Alexpl (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Very strong support This is an excellent idea for two reasons: 1) to ensure that our A-class articles are based on high quality sources 2) to ensure that they're well prepared for the source review which has been added to FAC processes since the A-class criteria were developed. I'd note that the A-class criteria were designed as a somewhat watered down version of the FA criteria in order to both drive high standards and prepare articles for FAC, so our criteria need to evolve as the FA criteria do. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that this would give the claimed benefit - Werner Mölders got through the FA process and has since had its sources criticized as questionable. The guidance listed for Featured review source checking probably wouldn't have picked up the issues raised in the ArbCom case, as the reviewers would not necessarily have the detailed knowledge of the sources in a field to identify whether a source is questionable (and probably shouldn't be used), or has biases or omissions and needs to be used with care or balanced with other sources. (And note that in many cases there isn't clear consensus about whether sources are questionable).Nigel Ish (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• G'day Nigel Ish I think the jury is still out on Mölders. I didn't have much to do with that article, just looked at the article and talk page, and it is clear that some more recent German language sources had not been used, but frankly, they are in German. The number of Milhist editors that can research what sources might be available in German and access them remains low. Does that mean that we can't have a FA on a German? I don't think so. If that was the case we would give up on ever having FAs on anyone not from the English-speaking world. I also think that the dismissive attitude shown on the talk page towards older sources is misguided. Academic consensus changes. For example, many academic Yugoslav/Serbian/Croatian sources written between 1945 and 2010 or so have serious problems with political or nationalist bias, but many older sources from outside those countries are far more neutral. It is clear from the current Mölders article that even the MGFA has changed its collective mind on aspects of Mölders bio. Sometimes all these articles actually need is an update using more recent (or German) sources, rather than a fail at FAC or a downgrade at FAR. I'm convinced that a better focus on sources at ACR will help identify those that need work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Further to that, I would presume that anything that had gone through ACR and FAC would have then had two source reviews (potentially by two different groups of editors), further increasing the chances of anything questionable being caught at either stage. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• G'day Sasuke Sarutobi, I entirely agree. This is a bit of what we might call a "belt and braces approach" in Australia (meaning it doubles up on what is required), but I think the recent revelations warrant it. It will provide greater assurance for FAC reviewers that Milhist has done its due diligence. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support: requiring source reviews is a sensible proposal although I do wonder if it will affect reviewing throughput. Zawed (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support In my experience of doing source reviews, it can be quite a time sink to do it thoroughly. I've also never been quite certain where the bar sits for ACR in relation to FAC generally. If the proposal is that ACR source reviews be completed to FAC standards, then fair enough, though I suspect that may impact the throughput negatively. Is it worth considering a cutdown version of the FAC source review standards that addresses the key issues recently raised? In this way, overheads are reduced and we have a strong indication that sourcing passes muster whilst leaving the finer details to FAC. Maybe mandate only the "High quality" and "Reliability" sections of Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC as the minimum standard for ACR? Factotem (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Good point, well made. ACR should focus on detailed, well-sourced content -- prose and style should also be of a high standard but don't need to be quite to FA level. So I'd be happy for source reviews at ACR to be primarily about reliability rather than the formatting aspect that's also part of the FAC source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Agreed, that seems fair to me, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support It might slow down reviewing, but it improves our image in the wake of the arbcom case and also improves article referencing. Kges1901 (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support And it will help set a precedence for what sources are and aren't reliable. We'll be able to look at the ones that have been declined in the past. SpartaN (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: although as noted, it may slow down the process to some degree, the benefit afterwards would show its worth. The chance of a re-review thereafter and disagreement as to sources used would be highly reduced. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Nick-D makes a good point that it helps shadow the FAC process in the spirit of the ACR (which leads me to also wonder if there are other aspects of FAC that ACR could benefit from), and SpartaN makes the excellent point that it helps improve awareness of source issues; this could also have not only the direct benefit of the additional source review, but also in potentially flagging up any systemic source issues sooner. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 17:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: A no-brainer. Good idea. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support the proposal to require a review of the High Quality and Reliability of sources per Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC. Possibly an over-reaction to the current ArbCom case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• G'day Hawkeye7, I should have clarified that is my intention, plus spotchecking for first time nominators, ala FAC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support should have been a no brainer, but now thats being supported it'll be a full brainer :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The ARB case has done enough to drag MILHIST through the dirt, we might as well begin the cleanup now. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: As others have said above, "a no-brainer." Even if this slows the review process, it's an important step which can only help to improve the opinion of librarians, university faculty, et. al., who continue to state that Wikipedia is unreliable. (Sample quote from 2013 from the State Library of Delaware, which remains posted on its website in 2018: "Because Wikipedia is easily edited, it’s not considered reliable.") 47thPennVols (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Per above.--Catlemur (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• I don't disagree with this suggestion, but I think it needs more thought than it's currently getting. It would be easy to have a source-reviewing process that gives us a false sense of confidence, but source reviewing requires expertise that not everyone has. Assessing the reliability and proper use of sources, especially books and journals, can require quite a bit of subject-matter expertise—for example, to know that a given book is the defining text for its area or that its author has been discredited. Succinctly, if we're going to do this, we (meaning the project as a whole, but probably coming down to the closing coordinator) need to make sure that source reviewing is more than just a cursory "looks fine to me". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This is part of the points I was trying to make earlier - source reviews are only as good as the reviewer's knowledge of the field and what the best sources for the subject and for the claims made are.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Inevitably this is going to be uneven given the available expertise, but I don't think it will be cripplingly so. ACRs covering the modern English speaking world and its wars will inevitably get better checks than those on, say, pre-modern South East Asian military history. But I think that we can give articles on relatively obscure topics a useful check - even checking that their sources are actually RS is very useful. Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, source reviewing, like the assessment process in general, is not an exact science, despite some useful guidelines having been put together by experienced editors. While there's always the chance of a false sense of security resulting, overall I think it can only be beneficial. We could add more teeth to it by requiring a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing for all newcomers to the ACR process, which is what we do at FAC. Of course that too adds to the duration of a review, but it also adds credibility (once a newbie has jumped through this hoop, we assume they can be relied upon to maintain the sort of diligence required to pass such checks but everyone, even the most experienced editor, should have their articles spotchecked once in a while to avoid complacency). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Do we have consensus yet? --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we're supposed to wait a minimum amount of time before closing. SpartaN (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, just leaving it for a full week (like an RfC) so everyone can have their say. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: as I proposed this, could one of you close it? I'll then implement it in our instructions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FA review for Werner Mölders

I have nominated Werner Mölders 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. Catrìona (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

23rd Panzer Division

A quick question as to whether the 23rd Panzer Division book I have is subjected to not being a verified source while the company is by "Stackpole publishing". I kinda remember someone telling me and I can't remember who. Adamdaley (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It's fine. Just don't rely on it for any political/social/ethical aspects of the division, as it may not be focussed on such. But it would be good for formation details, constituent units (order of battle), battles fought in, commanders etc. Be aware that without information on the political/social/ethical aspects it may not meet the GA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It is on the The Combat History of the 23rd Panzer Division in World War II by Dr. Ernst Rebentisch. Adamdaley (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just be aware that at least one editor has raised doubts about the original publisher, J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing, and that some academics have criticised Fedorowicz as a publisher. Read the Fedorowicz article to get an idea of the concerns that have been raised about it. I consider that this book is probably ok for basic aspects of the division as I've mentioned, but be aware that you may face some opposition to its use, you should look for additional sources to corroborate what it says, and you may need other sources for the political/social/ethical aspects of the division's operations. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Works by Rebentisch have previously been deleted by K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) - pinging them so they can say why they removed the sources and if they have any concerns about the sources reliability.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that is an overreaction. According to his de WP entry, Rebentisch was a mid-level (regimental) commander in the 23rd Panzer Division during WWII, and served in the Bundeswehr post-war, so he must have been de-Nazified, and this was published in 1963, post his de-Nazification. This book appears similar to the many participant-generated unit or formation histories from many countries that exist for any given war. For example, Lock's history of the WWI Australian 10th Battalion, written by a member of the unit. In the absence of negative reviews, I think it is fine for basic details of order of battle, deployments, battles fought etc. As I've mentioned, additional sources may be needed for political/social/ethical aspects of the division's operations, to meet the GA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Endorse Peacemaker67's comments. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Martha McSally

There is a RfC at the Martha McSally talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)