Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 149

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145←Archive 147Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150Archive 151→Archive 155

Gascon campaign of 1345

Any ideas why this is not showing on the list of A class articles for review. The sources seem solid and it appeats to be formatted correctly. And suggestions? Gog the Mild (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you had missed a step in the instructions for requesting a review, it hadn't been added to the list on the assessment page. I have done it now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
How embarrassing. Both missing that, and not realising, even after it was obvious that something had gone wrong. trout Self-trout Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed article on military caretakers

I'm thinking of creating a short article on military caretaker detachments in general, planning on the title "Caretaker (military)". One issue is that Ordnance sergeant is linked to "caretaker" in a number of articles. However, that article is specific to the US and Confederate armies, and the US Army discontinued the rank of Ordnance Sergeant in 1920, though use of caretaker detachments was common through 1940 or so. An article on the general subject of military caretakers would be more open to including other countries' situations and post-1920 caretaking efforts. Does anyone know of alternate terms for this type of mission or position, as used outside the US? RobDuch (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The small teams who maintain the Royal Australian Air Force's base bases are referred to as "caretakers" (e.g. [1] [2], [3]), and I think that the term has historically been used in this context in relation to other Australian military installations (such as coastal batteries and obscure Army depots). "Skeleton crew" can also be used (by the Navy?) in this context. This would be a great topic for an article BTW. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
My grandfather was a civilian "caretaker" at Naval Air Station Bunker Hill after WWII until the Air Force took it over in the 1950s. It was him and 3 or 4 other civilians. He helped build the base and didn't retire until 1972.Pennsy22 (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D, you may want to have a look at the Corps of Invalids (Great Britain), a body of men who were "too old or wounded to serve in the regular forces" and which looked after British forts and coastal batteries in peacetime during the 18th century. Alansplodge (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Very interesting, thanks. I had no idea that unit existed. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Corps of Invalids added to the article in my sandbox. Both armies in the American Civil War had the similar Veteran Reserve Corps or equivalent (started as Invalid Corps but that was thought to be demeaning); not adding to caretaker article b/c I'm assuming virtually nothing would be in caretaker status in wartime. RobDuch (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Cape Gloucester

G'day everyone, I have to go interstate at the end of the week to sort out some things for a sick relative, and will probably be without reliable internet between late on 30 November through to midday on 8 December. I currently have a GA nomination awaiting a review: Battle of Cape Gloucester, which is a co-nom with Hawkeye. I am sorry to ask, but I wonder if I might interest anyone in starting a review before I go? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I can do it tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Humanities published first article

The WikiJournal of Humanities is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's humanities, arts and social sciences content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group along with Wiki.J.Med and Wiki.J.Sci. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Editors

  • Invite submissions from non-wikipedians
  • Coordinate the organisation of external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

If you want to know more, please see this recent interview with some WikiJournal editors, the journal's About page, or check out a comparison of similar initiatives. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

As an illustrative example, Wiki.J.Hum published its first article this month!

  • Miles, Dudley; et al. (2018). "Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians". WikiJournal of Humanities. 1 (1): 1. doi:10.15347/wjh/2018.001. ISSN 2639-5347.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ottoman ship "Neire Chefket"

The Times of 11 November 1850 reports the loss of the Ottoman ship "Neire Chefket" at Constantinople on 23 October 1850 due to a fire and explosion in her powder magazine. Vessel reported to be 120 guns, so obviously a major battleship. There were about 200 survivors of the 600 or 700 on board. It is entirely possible that the vessel's name is incorrect. Can anyone identify the ship? Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  • The York Herald of 16 November 1850 says "The Neiri Shevket, ship of the line, of 120 guns, bearing the flag of the grand admiral, was totaly destroyed by an explosion of its powder-magazine on the 23rd ult." the commodore on board was Vice Admiral Mahmoud Pacha. MilborneOne (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
This (probably not reliable) source has it as the second rate Tir-i Sevket. This one as the Nir I Sevket of 96 guns. Both say it was laid down in 1842. - Dumelow (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikipedia also goes with Neiri Shevket. Note that Turkish was written in the Arabic alphabet at that time, and so would have had to have been transliterated. We have an article on a chap called Mahmud Shevket Pasha so that spelling seems to be the accepted one. A full and lurid account of the "most dreadful catastrophe... by which a great number of persons were suddenly hurried into eternity" is in The Fireman's Own Book (p, 164) Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Nir i Shevket looks better to my eyes. Will amend entry accordingly. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
However, that spelling produces only one Google hit which is the page you have just amended. "Neiri Shevket" has two pages of Google results, admittedly from English language sources, but perhaps Wikipedia:Common names applies here? Alansplodge (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alansplodge: - I prefer accuracy in these matters. For instance, see the entry for Arkhimed on 21 October 1850 - the ship was named by The Times as "Archimedes". A check of the list of Russian steam frigates reveals her true name. Dumelow's second source seems to be compiled by someone who knows what they are talking about. Should an article ever get written, redirects can be created. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled as to why we're not seeing any Turkish language results under that spelling though (or indeed any results at all).... Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Searching for "Nir-i-Sevket" gets a nice lot of results Lyndaship (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Well done, although again no Turkish language results. Alansplodge (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
It is likely that this is the Nir-i Şevket, as "Chefket" is a likely anglicisation of the Turkish name (as is Shevket) and the diacritic is screwing with the results. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, compare it to Ottoman ironclad Asar-i Şevket, Ottoman ironclad Necm-i Şevket, or Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket. I had a look in The Ottoman Steam Navy 1828–1923, but the accident isn't mentioned there. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Potentially misnamed person article

Hi all. Could some interested editors check out the problem raised by a new editor at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Editing a heading regarding the naming of Weedon Osborne? Regards SoWhy 06:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If his first name is spelt wrong will they issue a new medal of honor! MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
No. They'll just issue a sticker with the corrected spelling. ;p Vanna White shut up, Pat 19:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Capture of the Anne

I was thinking about the Capture of the Anne article. It has just been assessed for B-class. Would it go one better at GA? I've not contributed anything to it, but was seeing if it could be a GA? Adamdaley (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you got access to the sources? That really is necessary to be able to navigate it through GAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I would say yes, but I may be a minority (again ;p ). (Terminate "the"s with extreme prejudice.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

...aaannd then it was immediately undone because, according to them; "not what WP:NCS says - go thru WP:RM". Double-yew-tee-depth to that - wolf 01:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

He said "try it and see". You tried, now you see. (Page has been on my watchlist for a long time.) As I said on my talk page, "Capture of Anne" would incomprehensible to most readers without italics. That's a heavy a burden, in my opinion, for italics. "Capture of the Anne", on the other hand, would probably be understood as referring to the capture of a ship even without italics. Srnec (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
"Incomprehensible"...? To "most"? That's a stretch. I think it's a clearly straightforward, and easy to comprehend title for everyone, without that clunky "the" in the middle. I believe most people would see the title and think; "Hm, it seems that someone or something, named "Anne", has apparently been "captured"." Doesn't seem all that difficult. - wolf 06:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Move Request

At Capture of the Anne. See here for discussion. - wolf 02:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Notifying those who commented here; Trekphiler and Parsecboy. - wolf 19:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits to Content and Notability guides

Both pages have been recently modified to remove “Template:Essay”: [4]; [5]. I believe that these templates should be restored as these pages are each an advice page, not a guideline, which has a specific meaning in WP’s context. Courtesy ping @Hawkeye7:. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A more appropriate template would be Template:Wikipedia how-to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
If a template must to be added, then "how to" would be the one. These pages are not essays, they are WikiProject content guides. This is an essay. - wolf 02:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't believe the Template:Wikipedia how-to to be a suitable option here. Original template included: "This page is an essay on article content. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how the content policies may be interpreted within their area of interest. This WikiProject advice page..." "WikiProject advice page" linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages, which states:

WikiProject advice can best help editors by providing: subject-specific considerations in applying site-wide standards; links to subject-specific templates; a list of information that editors should consider including in a given type of article... (...) Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.

Compare with: Wikipedia:Project namespace#Wikipedia how-to and information pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the original text was very misleading. What happened was that the creation of guidelines ground to a halt. As a result, many of community's most important guidelines formally lack that status. The term "essay" then became meaningless, as it applied to all sorts of pages with wildly varying statuses. In this case, projects were encouraged to create local guidelines that reflected the consensus in their area of expertise. Our guides went through that WP:PROPOSAL process years ago. As Wolf says, they are not user essays, because they do have formal standing. The template was originally added to facilitate the shortcut links, which are now available with the how-to template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that bit of history, Hawkeye. I had wondered what their status was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd be interested in seeing the past discussions where the two pages went through PROPOSAL and achieved formal standing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The difference between the two is explained in WP:HOWTOPAGES:

Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I just had a quick look through the archives, and Kirill Lokshin will no doubt correct me if my summation is incorrect. The style guide was split off from the main Milhist page on 19 September 2007, here. It was then advertised at the Village Pump (policy) and Village Pump (proposals) pages as an addition to the MOS. The relevant Milhist discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 67#Project style guide and MoS. Some non-Milhist editors commented on it as a result. There being no objections to its addition to the MOS, it was accepted and marked as part of the MOS. The notability and content parts of the style guide were split off from the style guide on 31 July 2010 to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide which can be seen from this. At the time of their creation, they were marked as an "essay on notability" and "content guideline" respectively, per this and this. Obviously they have developed over time, with tweaks here and there to reflect consensus. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up

Thank you for the links. I see that the MOS discussion concluded on 10 November 2007: [6]. The content portion was not discussed, while the notability portion was tagged as "essay" in 2008, see here: [7].

This is also not my reading of WP:HOWTOPAGES, as "community" in this case means "Wikipedia community" not "project members":

Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms.

I thus don't believe that the content and notability guides have formal standing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. They clearly were part of the MOS before they were split off. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"This is also not my reading of WP:HOWTOPAGES, as "community" in this case means "Wikipedia community" not "project members"" - so, you're saying that Wiki:Project members are not part of the "Wikipedia community"...? - wolf 19:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
One more thing: If these pages are accepted as part of the MOS, it would make sense to give them their own Talk pages instead of redirecting to a project page. –dlthewave ☎ 21:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Reply - @Dlthewave:: "members of a Wikiproject are a subset of the Wikipedia community. Their decisions do not constitute Wikipedia community-wide consensus" - an opinion conveniently supported by having the C&N guides split off from the MOS. - wolf 21:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I fail to see what the big issue is here. What is the problem you are trying to solve? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67:Was this question for Wolf or for me? –dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Wikiproject Advice

The concern was about the recent changes to both pages: [12]; [13]. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages. The applicable templates would be:

To display as: {{WikiProject notability advice|WP:MILNG}} {{WikiProject content advice|WP:MILCG}}

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say 'no', based on Hawkeye7's and Peacemaker67's comments. I believe they have sufficiently explained this. But I'm just one person, we should see what others have to say. - wolf 07:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "These pages are not essays" is factually wrong. They definitely are essays, of a very particular kind covered by a clear guideline: WP:PROJPAGE. The proper tag for them is {{WikiProject advice}} (there are three variant templates, when applicable, with more specific wording: {{WikiProject style advice}}, {{WikiProject notability advice}}, {{WikiProject content advice}}). They are not {{How to}}s, which are technical and site-wide (non-topical) instructions on how to accomplish something like construct an advanced search or format a wikitable. And, yes, how-tos do indicate a community, not wikiproject, take on how to best do this. I have to be clear that the more strident people from any wikiproject become that their wikiproject advice isn't wikiproject advice, the more power-grabby and policy-clueless (see especially WP:CONLEVEL) it looks, and the clearer it becomes to everyone that these are definitely PROJPAGE essays.

    If someone thinks they should be considered guidelines by the community, that's going to require a WP:VPPRO proposal for each of them. If they were accepted as such, they'd be moved out from under the wikiproject and any wording like "WikiProject Military History says to ..." would be removed, since wikiprojects do not WP:OWN site-wide guidelines. Other copyediting would likely be needed, and some provisions might get axed as not representing site-wide consensus. This process is difficult today (what guidelines do we need that we don't already have?), but not impossible. The process is how we got most of our topically specific notability, naming-convention, and MoS guidelines, and we elevated a topical style PROJPAGE to an MoS guideline only last year (but also deprecated one with {{Historical}} as two-author PoV pushing that everyone ignores). Leave ranty "our way or the highway" stuff at the door, or the proposal will collapse very quickly. It requires compromise and a willingness to accept others' viewpoints.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

    • It seems to me that we haven't kept up with the process for these things since these two pages were hived off the MOS back in 2007. I've changed the templates as advised. I have to make the observation that essays cover a huge range from someone's personal brainfart to pages that condense the considered views of hundreds of editors with specialist knowledge of a subject area over a decade. Having watched the notability talk page for some years, and seen the sorts of utter nonsense that goes on over things like the notability of porn actors, I very much doubt there is any appetite whatsoever to go through a bureaucratic and probably highly agenda-laden process to try to have them formalised as formal community-wide guidelines as such guidelines exist now. Pinging @WP:MILHIST coordinators: that I've done this and made some consequent wording changes on the two pages as well as the front page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    I do not understand why a WP:VPPRO proposal is required for an information page when information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community. According to SMcCandlish, pages need to be thoroughly vetted by the community before they can claim that they are not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Question/Comment: If the guides were hived off from pages having "full status" and with full community knowledge and consent, were they not created with full status? And, given the knowledge and consent, was not the "community" reasonably obliged to monitor the continued status? Is there not a burden upon the broader community to maintain a watching brief upon them? MOS:CAPS is a subpage of the MOS (as are many such pages). They continue to have full "accreditation" with some riders. Do not these riders apply to MILNG and MILCG etc in a similar way? MILNG is linked from GNG. In itself, this acknowledges status? It would be a different case IMO if these pages (MILNG and MILCG) were created ad hoc and separate from the broader process but it isn't? Am I mising something substantial? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Commment: (1) Content and notability guides never had formal standing, as discussed above; (2) The GNG page was linking to MILNG via a template: Template:Notability guide. MILNG had been inappropriately added to the template by Special:Contributions/AyaanLamar ([14]) who was soon after indef-blocked for sockpuppetry. I've removed it: [15]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


At Talk:United States Naval Forces Central Command § Same commander as 5th Fleet? (which I see is not widely watched), I asked, "are the commanders of NAVCENT and the 5th Fleet always [currently] the same person (i.e. is RADM Schlise the interim NAVCENT commander, to be succeeded by VADM Jim Malloy, per cites at United States Fifth Fleet)?"

Also, is anyone currently working up an article for VADM Stearney, who died today? As COMNAVCENT and being fairly decorated, he seems notable per WP:MILPEOPLE. Is there an example skeleton article I should use if creating an article for him? (edited) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Stearney is definitely likely to be notable based on rank and size of command, which includes a fleet. Others more familiar with USN bios might have different suggestions, but I would suggest looking at Thomas C. Kinkaid and Arthur W. Radford which are both featured articles on a senior USN officer and will give you a sense of what to aim for. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes COMNAVCENT and C5F are the same officer, a Vice Admiral. It's two layers collapsed into one; a clearer example of the system is PACFLT, with a four star, and two three star operators, C7F and C3F. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone shed light upon why there's an invisible note in the NAVCENT text discouraging editors from redlinking Vice Admiral Jim Malloy, who is also very much notable, and thus worthy of a redlink? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: I wrote Do not wikilink without creation of a dab page and article for him because Jim Malloy is already an article on a race car driver; i.e. I was noting that it needs to be disambiguated in some way, since someone might just quickly accidentally wikilink it without checking that it points to the correct target (as I've been known to do ). I'll also note that this may need further refinement based on a source I saw today that says something like Malloy's role is to assist 5F and/or NAVCENT – it was strangely worded. TBD. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This is the news article to which I was referring above. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Light Cruiser

This article could use a major overhaul. It doesn't represent us well to the public, to say the least. I am the last person on earth to assume that I am always correct so can I get a few another pair of eyes on this for a review of an rewrite?Tirronan (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

16 tons

User:FobTown, over the last couple of weeks, has been adding this (or a variation on it) to Tonnage war & refuses to accept he's mistaken. I'm getting tired of rv'g. It doesn't appear to rise to vandalism, exactly. Attention by an admin (or somebody not me, at least) would be appreciated. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If it's not vandalism, why is admin attention needed? Primergrey (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


Scott Stearney photo

Input on the photo to be used in the Scott Stearney infobox is solicited at Talk:Scott Stearney § Infobox photo. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth L. Gardner

Was wondering if anyone who has some experience with articles about WWII pilots could take a look at this. It was just created and (unfortunately) most of the content was copied-and-pasted from a blog so it had to be removed. I tried looking for sources, and I'm getting more hits on the photo than I am on Gardner herself. Many times the photo is used in an article about the WASPs, but she's only getting mentioned in the caption or not at all. I found this, but I don't think it has any value as a RS. I stumbled across this because of WP:THQ#Article with featured photo asked at the Teahouse, but not sure whether it can be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If there aren't WP:RS then unlikely that she meets WP:GNG, the photo is already on Women Airforce Service Pilots page, delete. Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Article has been moved to Draft:Elizabeth L. Gardner by another editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER clarification

This proposal has been implemented. Thanks to everyone who contributed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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

One of the WP:SOLDIER criteria is "Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, a divisional formation or higher, an air group (or US wing), or their historical equivalents)". The article Group (military aviation unit) states that a group is sometimes the size of a UK wing (which apparently does not qualify under SOLDIER) and sometimes much larger; sometimes a group is larger than a wing, sometimes not. In order to be more clear, I suggest clarifying in one of the following ways:

  • Wing or group (whichever is larger in that service's system)
  • Any air unit larger than X number of squadrons

Any thoughts? Catrìona (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I would specify by approx. number of squadrons - would make it easier to handle vs. other systems , e.g, the Soviet model.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there a particular nationality you are looking at, because it varies considerably? I do agree it is a bit Anglo-American-centric at present in this regard, and the added complexity of WWII and post-WWII arrangements doesn't help. What we are talking about here IMO is a modern-day RAF or USN Group, a USAF or USMC Wing, or a formation such as 1 Canadian Air Division or Soviet/Russian Aviation Division. These days, such formations are commonly commanded by an officer in the range of colonel equivalent to one-star general. There are significant exceptions to this in the past though, as WWII Luftwaffe Geschwader (equivalent to an RAF Group or USAAF Wing) could be commanded by a major. In terms of number of squadrons, I would think the minimum would be four (two RAF wings of the minimum two squadrons each), or perhaps six to take it over the likely maximum size of a RAF wing, but of course this would range much higher as well. There is a need to be flexible because of the fact that some RAF Groups/USAAF Wings were small and others were really big. So perhaps an indicative range would be better than a minimum number of squadrons. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
What prompted me to ask the question was the recent recreation of Einar Axel Malmstrom, with the edit summary "Notabe per WP:MILPERSON #5 356 FG combat command". After checking GBooks, it seems that Malmstrom might meet GNG because he is profiled in the few places as the namesake of Malmstrom Air Force Base. However, it seemed inconsistent to me that Malmstrom would pass WP:SOLDIER but the commander of an RAF fighter wing wouldn't, when USAAF groups were roughly equivalent to RAF wings during World War II. I don't know if there were any RAF wings with six squadrons, but 244 Wing had five squadrons during the Tunisian and Italian campaigns. Catrìona (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I might add, that war-time appointments don't necessarily conform to the established rank of an appointment and some consideration may need to be given to individual circumstances. It appears to have been resolved however. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
As we have (and lots of other places have them too) a table of comparative ranks would it not just be easier to use that?Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd be careful about using number of squadrons; that would seem to disqualify any CAG. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought Carrier Air Groups/Wings included at least four squadrons, even during WWII? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You may be right... I'm working of a sense of size, not a sourced number. It made me leery. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ian Rose, Nick-D, and Lineagegeek: Before I put a proposal together, just pinging a few more aviation-focussed people for an opinion on whether SOLDIER really needs a tweak here, maybe to provide some more specific guidance for non-Common1ealth-US countries or even some flexible squadron numbers guidance? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that this terminology has caused a bit of confusion, and the guidance isn't necessary. In UK-style air forces, a 'group' is the most senior type of operational command, and comprises several wings (each with usually 2-4 squadrons). The commanders of groups in combat do generally end up being well known (e.g., all of the World War II-era RAF Fighter Command and Bomber Command group commanders have received significant coverage). USAF-style air forces use the terms in the opposite order - wings are the senior command, and comprise several groups (which sometimes have very few squadrons). A USN Carrier Air Group forms part of a wing, so isn't comparable to a RAF group. And of course there are anomalies - for instance, the World War II-era No. 300 Group RAF is pretty obscure and only comprised a handful of squadrons. RAF/RAAF peacetime group COs are generally pretty obscure, and the same applies to peacetime USAF wing COs. TLDR: I'd suggest removing this text, as I don't think that the guidance is particularly helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the (US wing) is appropriate, although some explanation beyond the "air group" with its current link might be appropriate. US wings are considered the equivalent of brigades. They mostly call for commanders to be brigadier generals (authorized), but the slots are more frequently filled by colonels. Before 1948, operational wings generally had 2-4 groups assigned, with each group having 3-4 operational squadrons. 1948-1950s and post 1991, wings have three or four groups with only one controlling operational squadrons, since US wings also include support elements for their base. US group command seems too low for presumed notability. Also, should the guideline be clarified as limited to operational groups/wings? USAF has had such organizations as Weather Wings and Communications Divisions. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
So, are we saying that the guidance should be reduced rather than expanded? It seems to me that we need to retain some sort of guidance for air units, as they are varied and there is the UK/US reversal of group/wing nomenclature, plus non-Anglo-US structures like air regiments and brigades. Given what has been said, I don't think using a minimum number of squadrons is particularly useful. FWIW, Soviet/Yugoslav and other air forces used regiments, which it seems to me were roughly equivalent to UK wings/US groups and therefore beneath the threshold for assumed notability per SOLDIER, and the Yugoslavs also used brigades (commanded by colonel-equivalents) which seem roughly equivalent to UK groups/US wings, and therefore possibly meet the threshold of SOLDIER. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Soviet regiments had about 30 aircraft in World War II in 3-4 squadrons (nominally), so I would agree with PM about notability. Aviation division commanders were generally colonels or major generals, so I would consider those equal to infantry division command for notability. Kges1901 (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't been paying much attention to this proposal. We've got a disparity of two grades between army division commanders, who are almost always 2-star generals in the Anglosphere (OF-7 in NATO grades) and commanders of capital ships who are almost universally captains (OF-5 colonel equivalent). If we're going to change the standard to specifically include OF-5 level aviation unit commanders, then I see no reason why we're not including the army equivalent of brigade/regiment commanders. At least in the US most such will have published military biographies, but I'm not at all sure about other militaries.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
In the Soviet and Soviet satellite militaries both army and aviation divisions were commanded by colonels or major generals, who were OF-5 or OF-6 equivalents. So for such militaries WP:SOLDIER already allows for a smaller equivalent notability than the Anglophone militaries. Kges1901 (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
During WWII, German officers commonly commanded divisions at the rank of Generalmajor and Brigadefuhrer, which were contemporary one-star equivalents, and even at Oberst and Standartenfuhrer (equivalent to colonel) rank. I don't think we are stretching this too far for operational commanders in air forces. We need to take the ship/aircraft into account when determining combat power under the control of a given officer (and how that influences notability). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose we make a tweak to WP:SOLDIER to say something like:

Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, an army division or higher, a Commonwealth air group, United States air wing, Soviet/Russian aviation division, or other historical air formation of equivalent size, generally two levels above a squadron.)

Thoughts/tweaks before I open a survey? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

That wording looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, PM67, that looks pretty good. I'd support it. - wolf 07:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: if you haven't already expressed your opinion, this could do with a look. If you have reservations, I'm keen to hear them before we amend WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  1. As proposer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Kges1901 (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support as the person who raised the issue. Catrìona (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support, after including the wording "..two levels above a squadron". Buckshot06 (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Zawed (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support as per Buckshot06's amendment.
  10. Support - wolf 14:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support - seems fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support Arius1998 (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support, Kierzek (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  14. support auntieruth (talk)

This is tracking well for consensus to make the change. I'll implement this in a couple of days unless things change dramatically. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Have implemented this now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 7 December 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.

Splitting 'Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)'

Please comment at Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)#Page size. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

References in the Wehrmachtbericht

What is the current/recent consensus in mentioning "References in the Wehrmachtbericht" as an award or honor? My recent removals from battleship articles [16] [17], one of which included the full German text and English translation, were reverted. Defining this as some sort of honor for a ship seems questionable and may need to be treated differently from individuals, since the Wehrmachtbericht also reported routine events such as returning to port or being sunk in battle. –dlthewave ☎ 02:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day Dlthewave. My understanding from a good-faith reading of the current Wehrmachtbericht article is that a German historian, Felix Römer, has stated that such mentions were treated as an award. So at least one historian considers them to be such, and it is therefore reasonable to describe them as such. However, the most recent discussion I can find at the NPOV noticeboard indicates that quoting the entry in full is undue, largely because it, as I understand it, was predominantly a propaganda broadcast. I believe that including the fact that the person, unit or ship was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht (and how many times, as well as noting that it was a propaganda broadcast when it is introduced), is completely reasonable given what Römer apparently says. It may be that we need to develop a brief guideline dealing with this, as it comes up a lot. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd say the same as PM, except that describing it inline as a propaganda bulletin sounds like editorialising, unless the source describes it as such -- linking it will allow the interested reader to find out the nature of the publication if they don't know already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
This seems to an American to be the direct equivalent of mentioned in dispatches for Commonwealth countries or of citation dans les ordres (citations in the order of the day) for France and at least Belgium. The article on mentions in dispatches focuses on individual awards, but a number of USAF units were cited in French or Belgian orders of the day during WW I and WW II (2 citations results in the award of the Fourragère, undoubtedly an award), so treating references in the Wehrmachtbericht as an award to a ship would seem to be similar. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: Thanks, that was my understanding of the current practice. Perhaps someone with access to full Wehrmachtbericht transcripts or the Römer source can confirm whether the entire broadcast was dedicated to honoring, or if there was a separate portion for more mundane announcements such as a ship returnng to port. –dlthewave ☎ 03:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • sorry I am travelling right now with no access to source. Mutawski and Römer state that units, ships, soldiers were singled out as a military honor and award. To add to that, I think I had sent scans of Römer and the writings of the German Federal Archives (Murawski) to Auntiruth some time agiert. She should be able to confirm my statement here.MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No rush, just worth knowing. My understanding is that they were basically a summary of the day's military events from the German perspective, with ships, individuals and units that had done notable things highlighted at the relevant point of the broadcast. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This has also been discussed on the talk page of the Wehrmachtbericht article, which seemed to conclude that it is considered propaganda and not an award or equivalent to MiD. Pinging K.e.coffman as he was the one to bring the article to GA and might have something to add to the discussion. My own opinion is that even if one historian considers it an award, that isn't sufficient to treat it as such for Wikipedia purposes, particularly if other historians have concluded that it's propaganda. Catrìona (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Felix Römer and Sönke Neitzel

@Catrìona: thank you for the ping. There are a few related issues here. In the case of the Ernst Lindemann article, the Wehrmachtbericht is used as a source about itself. All of the mentions are cited to the Wehrmachtberichte; this raises issues of due weight.

This edit summary ("see Felix Römer and Söhnke Neitzel, a reference was an award") appears to be at least partially incorrect. I assume MisterBee1966 meant Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing, and Dying when he referred to Neitzel (with co-author Harald Welzer), as MB had added similar material to the Wehrmachtbericht article: diff. Page 78 of the German edition appears to roughly correspond to pages 39–40 in the English edition, in the section "Frame of Reference: War". There, the authors cite "Wehrmacht reports" (note 71, p. 360) to discuss the tone of the reports and how it reflected the "German military canon's orientation around classical martial virtues".

Neitzel & Welzer do not refer to the report as an award or a commendation on pp. 39–40. I do not see in the English edition's surrounding pages anything of this nature, as inserted by MB: The named reference in Wehrmachtbericht lead to the Honor Roll of the Army, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, where soldiers who had performed acts of exceptional military valor, were listed. I would be curious to see what specifically Römer says about the Wehrmachtbericht, as, in my experience, the interpretation of Soldaten in this regard is WP:SYNTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

i see that it has been recently edited...with (some) paragraph(s) removed. not sure if we should delete before we decide.auntieruth (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Rather than making assumptions, perhaps we should AGF until MB can provide a quote from the reference in question. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Peacemaker67: for waiting. The relevant German quote is taken from the book by Neitzel, Sönke; Welzer, Harald (2011). Soldaten: Protokolle vom Kämpfen, Töten und Sterben [Soldiers: On Fighting, Killing and Dying] (in German). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: S. Fischer Verlag. ISBN 978-3-10-089434-2. On page 78, the authors state the following "Neben dem Eisernen Kreuz und seinen verschiedenen Stufen wurden von Hitler und der Führung der Teilstreitkräfte bald weitere Tapferkeitsauszeichnungen geschaffen - so das Deutsche Kreuz in Gold, das im September 1941 gestiftet wurde, um eine Auszeichnung zur Verfügung zu haben, die zwischen dem Ritterkreuz und dem EK I angesiedelt war. Zudem gab es die Möglichkeit, Soldaten, die außergewöhnliche Taten vollbracht hatten, namentlich im Wehrmachtbericht zu nennen. Daraus erwuchs dann der Gedanke, ein besonderes Ehrenblatt des Heeres, eine Ehrentafel der Kriegsmarine und ein Ehrenblatt der Luftwaffe zu schaffen, wo Soldaten mit hervorstechenden Tapferkeitstaten genannt wurden." Which translates to something like "In addition to the Iron Cross and its various stages, Hitler and the leadership of the armed forces soon created further bravery awards - such as the German Cross in Gold, which was donated in September 1941 to have an award situated between the Knight's Cross and the Iron Cross 1st Class. In addition, there was the prospect to reference soldiers by name, who had done extraordinary deeds, in the Wehrmacht report. From this arose the idea of creating a special honor roll of the army, an honor board of the navy, and an honor sheet of the Luftwaffe, where soldiers with salient bravery were named." Unless this violates copyright regulations, I can send a scan of this page to anyone interested. @Auntieruth55: I believe you speak German, does my translation adequately reflect the German verbiage? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@MisterBee1966:, yes I think this is reasonable translation. I don't see it as a routine report (ship returns to port, etc.), but rather as an extraordinary report; it may have had routine elements (ships returning to port), but clearly it seems to me that it at least portions of it were used to honor extraordinary acts or accomplishments. I'd paraphrase the translation thus (for inclusion in the article): "In addition to the Iron Cross and its various stages, Hitler and the leadership of the armed forces created additional awards for bravery - such as the German Cross in Gold, which was established in September 1941 to have an award situated between the Knight's Cross and the Iron Cross 1st Class. In addition, the Wehrmacht report also allowed the possibility to reference, by name, soldiers who had accomplished extraordinary deeds. From this arose the idea of creating a special honor roll of the army, an honor board of the navy, and an honor sheet of the Luftwaffe, where soldiers with relevant bravery were named." auntieruth (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This quote mentions the naming of individual soldiers but it does not support the idea that routine news reports, such as the mention of a ship returning to port or being destroyed in battle, were meant to confer some sort of honor upon the subject. It seems that it is being construed to treat the entire contents of the Wehrmachtbericht as a sort of honor roll. –dlthewave ☎ 15:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks MisterBee1966 that is helpful, and I think clears things up for people. This appears to only refer to people, however, not to mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht being an honour for a ship, for example, to justify a Wehrmachtbericht mention being included in a ship article. I'll note that the Wehrmachtbericht article currently only refers to a mention being an honour for people, not ships, units, air wings etc. Is there a reliable source for the latter being the case? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Peacemaker67, you are correct, to address your last question we have to look into another source. The book by Murawski, Erich (1962). Schriften des Bundesarchivs—Der deutsche Wehrmachtbericht 1939 – 1945, vom 1.7.1944 bis zum 9.5.1945 [Writings of the German Federal Archives—The German Wehrmacht Report 1939 – 1945, from 1 July 1944 to 9 May 1945] (in German) (2nd ed.). Boppoard am Rhein, Germany: Harald Boldt Verlag. OCLC 906100905 discusses this in section "Der Inhalt des Wehrmachtbericht" [The Content of the Wehrmachtbericht] (pages 67 to 102), in particular pages 68 and 69 are of relevance here. On page 68, a numbered list gives an overview of the content. With respect to the Kriegsmarine, item #2 "Seekrieg (auf und unter dem Wasser und aus der Luft) auf allen Meeren" [War at Sea (surfaced and submerged and from the air) on every ocean] sums it up. A quote from page 87 "...ehrenvolle Nennung von Einzelkämpfern und Einheiten..." [...honorary named references of single combatants and units..."], on page 88–89 "Die ehrenvolle Erwähnung im Wehrmachtbericht wurde allgemein mit Recht als eine besondere Auszeichnung empfunden" [The honorary named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht Report was universally and rightly regarded as a special distinction]. Again, unless this violates copyright regulations, I can send a scan of this page to anyone interested. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Given he himself was a leading propagandist for Nazi Germany, bias is to be expected in how Murawski describes the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be underscored by criticism levelled at his book on the Wehrmachtbericht (from the de article) that he approached his subject in an "uncritical" way. Is that a correct translation? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is a fair summary Peacemaker67. The criticism was expressed by Daniel Uziel. Are you saying that "uncritical" equates to "unreliable"? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Not unless there were aspects of WP:RS that weren't met, and I don't know anything about Harald Boldt Verlag. What I would say is that he needs to be treated as a WP:BIASED source, so it probably is appropriate to use WP:INTEXT attribution for his opinion about the Wehrmachtbericht. Along the lines of "According to former Wehrmacht propaganda officer and later German Federal Archives archivist (or some similar description) Erich Murawski...". Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
"The honorable mention in the Wehrmachtbericht (...) as a special award" seems to be more appropriate than "The honorary named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht (...) as a special distinction" here. Alexpl (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
In a military context, "award" usually means you were physically given something (usually something to wear), which I don't believe applies here. I agree that "mention" is a good way to describe it though. I suggest "a mention of a person, ship or unit in the Wehrmachtbericht was considered a special distinction". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
It is worth noting that there is an English edition of Neitzel/Welzer: Soldaten - On Fighting, Killing and Dying: The Secret Second World War Tapes, published by Simon & Schuster in 2012. The translation is by Jefferson Chase. That particular paragraph that MisterBee1966 has quoted is only to be found in the German edition. It is omitted in the Englisch edition. Besides, as Neitzel/Welzer also make clear in their discussion, awards "brought social prestige and created intentional social pressure. [...] Nazi propaganda constantly featured the bearers of awards for extraordinary bravery, and Goebbels made a handful of them into full-fledged media stars. [...] The symbolism of and policies with which awards were bestowed were designed to create a sense of social acknowledgment, and this anchored military values deep within soldiers’ frames of reference." So simply to speak of a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht as being "an honour" tells less than half of the story. --Assayer (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Assayer, I agree to your statement. The discussion originated in the question on whether a "named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht" was an award/distinction held in high esteem or not. I believe the various authors/historians confirm that a "named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht" indeed was an award, with all the consequences you mentioned, which also should be addressed in the article. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that the repeated discussion about whether this was an award or not jumps too short, because it touches upon the issue of propaganda. Particularly in the case of Lindemann Holger Afflerbach's "Mit wehender Fahne untergehen" (VfZ49/2001 [18]) would provide some much needed context. (I mentioned that, e.g., during the recent arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#Evidence presented by Assayer). Other than that it should be clear, that the Wehrmachtbericht was not simply an "information bulletin", but war propaganda. Generally speaking I would argue, if those kinds of awards are not covered by RS, by which I do not mean militaria like KC recipients' dictionaries (Scherzer, Fellgiebel, Thomas/Wegmann, Dörr and so forth), there is no particular need to include them in a Wikipedia article.----Assayer (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again, we have Römer, Neitzel, Welzer and Murawski referring to the "named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht" as an award and/or distinction, while you argue, for all the arguments mentioned, it does not fall into that category. Question, in order to avoid WP:SYNTH, do we require a reliable source to support this point of view? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
That’s a misrepresentation of my argument. I consider the question ‘’award or not award’’ to be futile. If this “culture of military medals” is not put into context, “the German military canon’s orientation around classical martial virtues” (Neitzel/Welzer) is merely reproduced. More than 2,000 German sailors lost their lives under Lindemann’s command in a fight without any chance of inflicting damage on the enemy. In that perspective, Lindemann’s posthumous mention is not really notable. The literature on the Bismarck is sizable. How many reliable sources refer to Lindemann's mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht, let alone all the details concerning his Knight's Cross?--Assayer (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Some factual corrections are required: Lindemann was not in command and the German (official) historians have briefly assessed Admiral Lütjen's decision to fight to the death and their remarks are summarised in his article. The conclusion was and is that selling oneself dearly had military value. I seem to remember HMS Rodney escaped one of Bismarck's salvos by a very small margin. Given Lindemann's influence on the entire operation was reduced by the overpowering command style of Lutjens, I struggle to see why Lindemann was awarded the Knight's Cross at all. Dapi89 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ships

Getting back to my original question about the ships: Based on this discussion, the cruiser Deutschland's mention clearly amounts to a routine report and should not be mentioned as an honor in the article. Battleship Bismarck's three mentions (an "account of the Battle of the Denmark Strait", "a brief account of the ship's destruction" and "an exaggerated claim that Bismarck had sunk a British destroyer and shot down five aircraft") are a bit more open to interpretation. Do we have a non-OR way of distinguishing which mentions might be considered honors and which are routine reports, preferably using secondary sources? –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just applying a common sense criteria about it containing some sort of element of praise in the entry seems the way to go. Saying that the ship had been conducting a trade war in the Atlantic and has now come home is pretty routine and non-praiseworthy to me. If it said what tonnage she had sunk, that would be a different matter. The entry for Lutzow says that the ship bravely supported a garrison, so that would be appropriate in my view. It is a matter of weight. Personally I'm not sure about whether the actual transcripts are undue or whether just saying that there was a mention, the date, and what for, would be a better approach. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The Wehrmachtbericht contains a registry for all named references. This registry is divided into multiple sections. The first, for single combatants and lists name, rank and date. The second, for units beginning with the Army (Heer) listing the unit (division, regiment, battalion, etc.) and date, the Navy (Kriegsmarine) listing (ship, u-boat, flotilla, etc.) and date, the Air Force (Luftwaffe) listing (wings, groups, air corps, etc.) and date, and Waffen-SS listing (division, regiment, batallion, etc.) and date. I was under the impression that it is community consensus to not include the original transcript of the Wehrmachtbericht, and to limit the information on Wikipedia to date and fact that a person/unit had been given this award/distinction. In consequence, I would expect to find an entry on the cruiser Deutschland/Lützow article that the ship was named in the Wehrmachtbericht on 25 January 1940 and 9 February 1945, avoiding any dispute over how and why. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. I think there has to be a praiseworthy reason for the mention for it to be included. I don't see that for Deutschland because that is basically the same as a BBC News report of a ship returning to port, but I do for Lützow, as it actually praises something about what the ship did. Surely, to be treated as meritorious thing, there must be something meritorious about it, not just returning from a mission, without anything said about success. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Coming late to this. I think it should be all or nothing (and I favour not at all). To only include some we get into what were significant mentions and which were routine, in the example given Deutschland's raiding cruise was successful and presumably the successes were not mentioned due to secrecy reasons, conversely I don't see Lutzow's shore bombardment of any special significance at all Lyndaship (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Disagree. There is nothing in the transcript that indicates that Deutschland's cruise was successful. Assuming that its success was not mentioned for secrecy reasons is OR, whereas Lutzow's shore bombardment is clearly being praised in the transcript. Chalk and cheese. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
That's why I said all or none of the mentions in Wehrmachtbericht should be considered for inclusion. Then there's no need to make a judgment if that mention is delicious natural organic cheddar or cruddy factory processed cheese Lyndaship (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Unless MisterBee1966 can help us find the registry that specifically lists "honorary" references, any attempt to sort them ourselves would be OR. I support the "nothing" approach unless an honorary mention is covered by a secondary source. If we decide to list all of the references, it should not be in an honors/awards section. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I can scan the registry (soldiers, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe and Waffen-SS) and send to anyone interested. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
If an incident or (honorary) mention was notable, it would be covered in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, wouldn't it? There should be no need to turn to the unreliable Wehrmachtbericht in the first place, even if you merely skim the register.--Assayer (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
That is not what we are talking about here, and you are once again misusing the term "notability", which is about whether we have an article on a subject, not what detail should be included in an article. We are talking about the mentions being a distinction. Given this has been an issue for some time, I think we need some proposals to decide what to do regarding these mentions. Something along the lines of inclusion (with parameters) or non-inclusion. I'll put something together. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WT:Ships#Non-notable crew touching on similar issues. fyi - wolf 01:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be cautious of relying on the language qua language. Given the way USN sub patrol reports were endorsed, "bravely defending a garrison" could be standing offshore watching them be shelled into oblivion, or overrun. (Patrol reports were full of "exceptional"s & "extraordinary"s that are cringe-worthy as historiography; "outstanding" effectively has the value of "yes".) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura
Indeed, even if I did not use the term "notable" in line with its strict Wikipedian definition, which is not the same as a "misuse", I might as well refer to WP:NOTEVERYTHING to make my point.--Assayer (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposals regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht

OPTION 2
There is consensus to adopt option 2, which allows mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht to be included in relevant articles when a reliable source that focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour. Editors consider the Wehrmachtbericht itself a questionable source, but most editors believe the mentions would constitute due weight when reliable sources cover them under these conditions. A minority of editors disagreed, and argued that including mentions of the Wehrmachtbericht would constitute undue weight because most reliable sources do not describe these mentions as honours. — Newslinger talk 21:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

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

In the hope of establishing a consensus about what if anything should be done regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht, here are a couple of proposals regarding their handling. These are just my crack at the two positions that seem common in the above discussion, feel free to add to them, modify the wording, or propose additional ones. I have concentrated on the issue of WP:UNDUE as it seems to me that WP:NPOV is the most relevant policy, but if you feel that WP:VERIFY or WP:OR are relevant, please raise this and explain how you see them impacting on this issue. As this is basically a yes/no question, I've drafted it for simple approval voting. To make it easier to assess consensus, please keep the discussion in the discussion subsections for each proposal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest making this an RfC? As it stands now, the outcome will be the non-binding opinion of a Wikiproject and not full community consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 21:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I've advertised this to WikiProjects Ships, Aviation, History and Germany. Feel free to advertise anywhere else that might be appropriate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A third option seems to arise from the discussion above: that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht only be noted where a RS focused on the person/unit specifically says that this was done as honour. This would solve the problem of routine reports being noted (I imagine that some units and senior officers were frequently mentioned), as well as avoiding the risk of undue weight being placed on this propaganda broadcast. I've WP:BOLDly added this as the new option 2 (as it seems to be a half-way point between the others), which I hope is OK. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
That's great Nick, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

#1 Inclusion in relevant articles with caveats

That mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht may be included in relevant articles on the basis that such a mention was a distinction for people within the Wehrmacht, per the Felix Römer source above, and a distinction for units, ships etc per the Erich Murawski source (which is biased and should be treated as such). Any mentions should be in summary form, including only the date of the broadcast and a brief summary of what was said about the subject of the mention, and should also mention that the Wehrmachtbericht was a propaganda broadcast. Full transcripts and translations should not be included, as there is an existing consensus that this would be giving them undue weight given the Wehrmachtbericht was a propaganda broadcast.

Support (#1)

# auntieruth (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  1. Dapi89 (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion (#1)
  • Suggestion: We are limited to what we can say by the sources, but if the vote is in favour of full-inclusion of the German text, and if possible, I'd prefer a standard description advising the reader of what they are reading. The reports contain propaganda certainly, and inaccurate information, whether deliberately or in genuine error, but also the point of the reports were to improve German morale and increase fanaticism in the Wehrmacht, and I think that should be driven home. Dapi89 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

#2 Inclusion in relevant articles when highlighted by a reliable source

That mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht may be included in relevant articles when a reliable source which is focused on the relevant person or unit specifically states that this mention in the Wehrmachtbericht was an honour.

As in option 1, any mentions should be in summary form, including only the date of the broadcast and a brief summary of what was said about the subject of the mention, and should also mention that the Wehrmachtbericht was a propaganda broadcast. Full transcripts and translations should not be included, as there is an existing consensus that this would be giving them undue weight given the Wehrmachtbericht was a propaganda broadcast.

Support (#2)
  1. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. dlthewave talk 05:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC) (changed to #3)
  3. I am giving my tentative support to this. Minimal usage of Nazi propaganda, barring no usage, is the best. –Vami♜_IV♠ 05:49, 21 October 2018
  4. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  5. Lyndaship (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  6. this option appeared after i had tegistered support for first one. this is a much better choice. auntieruth (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support this - under the caveat that this should be strong source (e.g. see WP:HISTRS), and that if this a widely covered individual/ship/unit - that per WP:DUE a multitude of such sources should exist - e.g. if this were say, Rommel, one would need to show a significant body of serious work referring to this - as opposed to a marginal notability article in which a single HISTRS source would suffice for DUE. Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  8. Generally, if something is covered by a reliable source, it should be included. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  9. - wolf 23:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion (#2)

In my experience, the Wehrmachtbericht is rarely raised in the general literature on World War II and the Germany military's role in the war. Only specialised, and often fairly obscure, works ever raise the prospect of mentions in it being noteworthy for named units or individuals (vastly more weight is placed on medals and tributes from respected figures). As such, I think that mentions should only be noted when a reliable source which is focused on the individual or unit (and not a general listing of Wehrmachtbericht mentions, Nazi German era military honours or similar) raises the mention and states that it was intended as some kind of honour. I think that this goes to the points raised in the discussion above as well as earlier discussions about differing views put forward by historians, and the prominence and reliability of sources. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. It seems pretty obscure, and I haven't seen mention of it outside WP, so I don't think this proposal will support inclusion on a lot of articles. Where a reliable source mentions it, for example in a biographical sketch of an officer or soldier, or in a section of a book about German ships or a particular air group, I see no reason why a brief summary could not be included, so long as it is clear that the Wehrmachtbericht was the daily Wehrmacht propaganda broadcast. I am opposed to a blanket ban, as that smacks of censorship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
What would be the ramifications of this proposal? Comparing the German Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia, I see that in many instances the current approach of listing occurrences and date is very comparable, see de:Werner Mölders versus en:Werner Mölders, de:Adolf Galland versus en:Adolf Galland, compare also the German and English articles of Erich Hartmann, Günther Rall. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@MisterBee1966: since no one commented, I'll respond. My understanding that these mentions would come out under this proposal, as being cited to the Wehrmachtberichte themselves. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Initially favouring no mention as it is clearly propaganda and I feel the RS claiming it was an honour is insufficient to prove that it was I am won over to the above proposal on the grounds that we shouldn't censor and it makes readers aware that the Wehrmachtbericht existed Lyndaship (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem is: How do we define RS (see the point also raised by K.e.coffman below)? Some will argue, and have done so in the past, that specialised and obscure literature, even memoirs and the Wehrmachtbericht itself, are RS when it comes to the "fact" that someone has been mentioned. What Nick-D seems to have in mind, and maybe Peacemaker as well, is probably closer to WP:HSC. Anyway, that should be clarified. Furthermore, historical scholarship may mention that someone was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, but does not provide a summary of what was said. How will you come up with such a summary? That amounts to OR by Wikipedians who will turn to the Wehrmachtbericht themselves. Does this proposal also affect the listing of the Wehrmachtbericht mentions under Awards or is it confined to the possible inclusion in the main text? By including a "brief summary" the Wehrmachtbericht is also highlighted in comparison to other awards like the Knight's Cross. By the same logic one could argue that we need brief summaries of why the KC was awarded and so forth. Two more things are worth noting: First, neither Felix Römer nor Neitzel/Welzer are writing biographies of individual soldiers. It seems quite odd to use them as references to legitimize the inclusion of the Wehrmachtbericht in individual biographies. Second, in this whole context it seems odd to speak of "censorship", not at least because the Wehrmachtbericht itself was heavily censored.--Assayer (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
My intent with specifying that reliable sources focused on the individual/unit are needed was to prevent circular referencing to directory-style listings and the Wehrmachtbericht itself. If such a RS includes reference to a mention and states that it was an honour, I don't see why there's a need to quibble over it? Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
That was also my understanding of the proposal, and given Nick is its proponent, I fail to see why this discussion would not be taken into account as part of the consensus, assuming this proposal was the consensus position. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've never seen Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe, which has been my primary source in writing articles on German warships, mention the Wehrmachtbericht. Their histories of ships are generally fairly detailed, and if they didn't see fit to include the reports, I would be hard pressed to argue that they should be mentioned. Of course this question extends (significantly) beyond just warships, but that's my 2 cents. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the intention. But what are RS in this context? A productive author like Ralf Schumann, to name only but one example, publishing with VDM Heinz Nickel, certainly never misses such a mention. Günter Wegmann not only authored several comprehensive dictionaries of KC recipients, but also edited a complete edition of the Wehrmachtbericht. Their publications are used in several articles. And who will provide the brief summary of what was said about the subject of the mention, if it is not provided by a secondary source? Given how controversial discussions about the reliability of sources have been in the past, this proposal potentially supports inclusion on a lot of articles.--Assayer (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
For clarity, what I am suggesting is that an article on a fighter pilot might say "On 21 May 1941, Schmidt was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, the daily Wehrmacht propaganda broadcast, to mark his 50th aerial victory." A brief summary in sentence fragment form would be all that is needed, ie "to mark his 50th aerial victory". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: do you have an RS in mind from which such material could be sourced? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
No. I'm not a specialist in this area, so I don't have such a source in mind. But I don't think it is impossible that such a source exists, so believe we should provide for that eventuality. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
We shouldn't be providing for eventualities, though. The outcome of this discussion (as with any) should based on the available sources which have been brought forth. If the body of published material changes, or if editors discover forgotten sources, then it would be appropriate to revisit. –dlthewave ☎ 13:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your premise. We cannot possibly know all the reliable sources that either exist now or may exist. The intention here is to provide general guidance on what would be acceptable if the stated conditions were met. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Parsecboy: Generally, if something is covered by a reliable source, it should be included. Actually, it would also need to meet the requirements of WP:WEIGHT. Simply being covered by a reliable source is not sufficient grounds for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. –dlthewave ☎ 03:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. WEIGHT concerns itself with viewpoints on controversial topics (i.e., like whether climate change is happening or not, and how that should be presented in an article). It has nothing to do with whether a specific factoid like the Wehrmachtbericht should be included. The only place where WEIGHT has any relevance here is in discussing how the Wehrmachtbericht should be presented (i.e., as a press communique, a propaganda broadcast, etc.). Parsecboy (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. That adds too much weight to a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht as an award and may lead to repetetive prose (I am thinking, e.g., of Werner Moelders). And, yes, I do consider awards or, more precisely, the way awards are presented in military biographies to be controversial. If it was not controversial among Wikipedia editors, we would not have this discussion. WP:NOTEVERYTHING does not confine itself to controversial topics, however, neither does WP:DUE. Instead it is the prominence of the Wehrmachtbericht in published, reliable sources on the topic in question which counts as decisive.--Assayer (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Now I'm more confused. If an action out of which the actor received a medal or some kind of commendation is mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, can the WB be used (or not) in the discussion of/description of that action? auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Auntieruth55. What we are saying here is that if a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht is referred to by a reliable source that is focussed on the subject of the article, for example a book about a Gruppe or a biography of an individual pilot, then a brief summary of the mention in the Wehrmachtbericht can be included in the relevant article. If the only reference to the mention is in the Wehrmachtbericht itself (or in a book which essentially is an edited collection of Wehrmachtbericht reports), then it would not be included in the article. Nick-D will correct me if I have misrepresented his proposal. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's what my intention was. The Wehrmachtbericht is obviously not a reliable source, and my proposal here is that for any mentions in it to be considered worth including in an article, a reliable source which is focused on the subject of that article (for instance, a book or a chapter on the topic) needs to note the mention and state it was intended as an honour. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

In July 2016, Zero0000 referred to WP:ABOUTSELF and stated "that sources can be used about their own content, even if they are unreliable about things other than their own content. In case my intention isn't clear, two examples. (1) "Generalleutnant Schultz captured Stalingrad single-handedly" (source Wehrmachtbericht by date) is not acceptable since Wehrmachtbericht is not a reliable source. (2) "The Nazi propaganda communique Wehrmachtbericht claimed that Generalleutnant Schultz had captured Stalingrad single-handedly." (source Wehrmachtbericht by date) is 100% within the rules if it can be verified that Wehrmachtbericht indeed claimed that. It would be better if (2) could be cited to a secondary source, but there is no rule against citing primary sources directly." Is this still a valid view? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It is still my view. Of course the fact that something is allowed doesn't imply that it must be done. The degree to which the fact/claim is historically significant should be taken into account as well. Zerotalk 12:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Frankly this is an odd reading of WP:ABOUTSELF, and is more relevant to WP:BIASED which suggests in-text attribution. The way I read WP:ABOUTSELF is that the Wehrmachtbericht can only be used as a source of information about itself, in the Wehrmachtbericht article, but not about third parties mentioned in it such as a person/ship/Gruppe etc, ie in the WB article it can be used to state that the WB was issued every day from X date to X date, who authorised it on any particular day, stuff like that. I am a bit limited here, as I don't know exactly what information is included in each whole broadcast transcript in order to provide other examples. Basic facts about the Wehrmachtbericht itself though, not its content about third persons. That is how I have always considered that policy to operate ever since I started on WP, and I believe that is the consensus on how it is interpreted. If, for example, the source was a self-published blog by a non-expert, you could use it to cite that the blog existed, that there was an blog entry on a particular day, who the author of the entry purportedly was, what the blogger claimed their qualifications were, but you couldn't use it to cite what the blog said about another person or thing (ie a third person). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Sample sources?
  • It would be helpful to see a few samples of reliable sources that cover Wehrmachtbericht as an honour for individual named soldiers. For background, please see the comments above: [19] & [20].
If we move from the abstract (a reliable source, a biography of an individual pilot) to the concrete (specific sources), we’ll be able to evaluate them before the discussion concludes. This will help avoid debates and confusion in the future.-- K.e.coffman (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that is necessary or even desirable. We cannot exhaust all the possible sources for such mentions here. This is a general discussion to achieve a consensus about under what circumstances mentions in the WB could be included, not about whether it can be included on a specific article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The subject of "mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht" in re: specific soldiers has received no attention from reliable secondary sources that I could find. The Wehrmachtbericht itself is discussed in RS as a component of Nazi war-time propaganda and for its role in the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. The sources that discuss the Wehrmachtberich mentions as a commendation are hobbyist and / or fringe (read, neo-Nazi) publications, such as:

This feat earned him his third reference in the Wehrmachtbericht on 27 March 1942. In July 1942 he was one of the leading German night fighter aces with 37 aerial victories.[1]

References

  1. ^ Helden der Wehrmacht II 2003, p. 137.
Via Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld article. The source, Helden der Wehrmacht – Unsterbliche deutsche Soldaten ("Heroes of the Wehrmacht – Immortal German soldiers"), has the dubious distinction of being mentioned in Antisemitism Worldwide, 2000/1 alongside such books as "KZ-Lies" and "The Wehrmacht as Liberator". See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/Op-ed#Some sources belong in the dustbin of history.
In short, there's been no attention from RS to the topic of Wehrmachtbericht as a military commendation for individual soldiers (to my knowledge). None have been presented in this discussion either, including by proponents, Auntieruth55 and MisterBee1966. In this case, proposal #2 is functionally equivalent to #3 below, and we might as well acknowledge this lack of RS. This would help avoid continued confusion and advocacy on behalf of such mentions/sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
"To your knowledge". Precisely. You apparently do not know of any, but that does not mean they don't exist. Have you read every book or chapter on every notable person ever mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht? Clearly not. We are establishing a principle here which would apply where the conditions are met, we're not going through every possible source here to see if they mention it and then having detailed arguments about each occasion before this RfC is closed. That is a discussion that will occur on each individual article when a source is produced that does refer to these mentions in the way outlined in proposal #2. Proposals #2 and #3 are in no way equivalent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I based my comment on reading and editing Wiki pages of highly-decorated WWII German personnel. Wehrmachtbericht mentions were to be found in apologist, revisionist, National Socialist, phaleristics, militaria, and / or Landser-pulp literature, with some of it issued by right-wing and extremist publishers. Such sources used to be acceptable, even in Good & Featured Articles; see for example: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#Dubious, unreliable and primary sources are routinely defended.
I think it's reasonable to request to see sample reliable sources, to make sure that they exist. Peacemaker, you apparently do not know of such sources either; we are in the same boat in this regard. I also note that neither MisterBee1966 nor Auntieruth55 have presented any. Yet, MisterBee is attempting to re-argue a 2016 discussion: [21]. Given past and present advocacy on behalf of such mentions, I'm not convinced that their proponents would drop the stick. Is it perhaps time to acknowledge the reality of the situation? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

#3 Non-inclusion

That mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht should not be included in relevant articles, as it is giving them undue weight given the Wehrmachtbericht was a propaganda broadcast.

Support (#3)
  1. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  2. --Assayer (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  3. --dlthewave (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  4. --Catrìona (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion (#3)
  • Avoids POV issues, original research, and indiscriminate amount of information based on Wehrmacht's press releases and unreliable war-time propaganda. I have concerns about Option 2 since it opens the door to arguing about which sources are "reliable". The quality in military history market varies greatly, from books issued by university presses to popular history to hobbyist/militaria publications, all the way to apologist or extremist tracts, such as those issued by the likes of J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing or Nation Europa. Given the past attempts to reintroduce Wehrmachtberichte into Wikipedia, or objections to their removal (see Wehrmachtbericht: Recent developments on my user page), I would favour a "clean break". --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems that the other proposals have not been thought out well (see my argument above) and will lead to further prolonged discussions, OR and POV issues. --Assayer (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Even if a few sources do describe a Wehrmachtberichte mention as an honor, this seems to be the WP:FRINGE view. WP:UNDUE requires that we cover viewpoints according to their overall prevalence among reliable sources and this viewpoint currently does not meet that bar. This is not a "ban"; it merely reflects the current body of scholarship, and we can certainly revisit the question if that changes. –dlthewave ☎ 17:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Reflects what is clearly the mainstream view in most high-quality sources, and sidesteps time-consuming discussion about exactly which sources are reliable, etc. Catrìona (talk) 22:01, 30 October 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.

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Confused

I'm trying to compile a list of Z Special Unit Operations from the National Archives of Australia from National Archives of Australia – (1946) – O8/A – [The Official History of the Operations and Administration of] Special Operations – Australia [(SOA), also known as the Inter-Allied Services Department (ISD) and Services Reconnaissance Department (SRD)] Volume 2 – Operations – copy no 1 [for Director, Military Intelligence (DMI), Headquarters (HQ), Australian Military Forces (AMF), Melbourne]. Operation Ambon – 23 A2 states that it was transferred to GHQ and then cancelled. What would that be? SOA, AIB, SRD or what? Adamdaley (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Adam, I don't understand this query. What is 23 A2? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, if you're trying to write an article directly from the primary sources in the archives—as opposed to from a secondary source discussing the sources in the archives—it will almost certainly be deleted as inappropriate for Wikipedia. There are some circumstances in which it's appropriate to cite a primary source on Wikipedia, but if you can't demonstrate that something is covered in secondary sources then by definition it's non-notable in Wikipedia terms, and if the secondary sources do exist then it's those that should be being cited. ‑ Iridescent 09:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Allan Powell's excellent book War by Stealth: Australians and the Allied Intelligence Bureau, 1942–1945 provides comprehensive coverage of AIB operations, and might be helpful here. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
As it states project Ambon – 23 A2, was a planned as an Australian party for long-term intelligence operation in the Ambon area. Planning commenced in October 1942 and training and equipping had been completed when delays in obtaining transport prevented the party from being put into the field. After 1 December 1942, when NEI Section of ISD was transferred to GHQ the project was abandoned. My question is, what was GHQ? Was it Special Operations Australia, SRD, AIB, etc? It doesn't state what the GHQ and it's name. Adamdaley (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
GHQ was General MacArthur's General Headquarters (please see Douglas MacArthur#General Headquarters). It was in charge of Allied operations in the Southwest Pacific Area. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) GHQ was MacArthur's staff (he was Supreme Commander South West Pacific Area), but Iridescent's point is well made, don't use this edited compilation of primary records as a principal source for such a list. Use sources like Powell. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
That's good advice you're being given, hunting down some good secondary sources will likely answer most, if not all, questions you have, as well as provide even more info than the archives. - wolf 16:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

'First World War' vs 'World War I'

Do we have a standard, in running prose, tables and infoboxes, on whether to prefer "First World War" or "World War I" (ditto WWII) , or it dot down to the national variant of English used, or (like referencing styles) to first-editor preference? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It comes down to the English variant used - WWI tends to be used more in AmEng and FWW tends to be used in BrEng (though I don't think that's a hard and fast rule). Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this documented anywhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Not in any of our project pages as far as I am aware, Andy. World War II has been at that title since its creation AFAIK, and Ngram has it three times as common as Second World War. Of the 940K views of the page in the last 30 days, only 38K came via the redirect. It's the generally accepted approach to go with editor consensus, as far as I can remember, and there is some inconsistency even with British articles like British Army during World War I and British Army during the Second World War. The equivalent Australian article is even at Australian Army during World War II, which tends to indicate that it may be a specific British thing rather than Commonwealth. It actually doesn't come up that much in my experience, possibly because World War II is far more common overall. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
World War I/II is probably more common now in Australia than First/Second World War, but I suspect that there isn't a big difference one way or the other. Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In the British Empire and France, it was officially the "Great War"; the term "World War" was used in Germany and the US. When the next war came along, Churchill decided that it should be called the Second World War, officially renaming the Great War as the First World War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I found this analysis quite interesting. It isn’t broken down by region at all, but it does appear that “World War I” tends to appear more often in print overall. CThomas3 (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Name of "Military historian of the year" award

No significant consensus to rename the award is present. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

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

One editor has expressed concerns about the name of the "Military historian of the year" award, and has suggested that it be renamed the "Military history editor of the year" award. For those not aware, the award was instituted with its current name in early 2009 for the 2008 calendar year. The name will be determined by a simple approval voting process by project members, with a separate subsection for discussion. Please indicate your support for one of the two options:

Military historian of the year

  1. Support Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per my comments below. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support More catchy than the other option. Kges1901 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - Are we really doing this? What a waste of time, all for some ridiculous grease-the-squeaky-wheel exercise. - wolf 01:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support. Per Kirill. Kierzek (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support as per wolf.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support. It is disappointing that this has become an issue. Zawed (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support. Agreed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support. Per Kirill and historical name. Evidence in the GWE case does not make it a fact. Disappointing. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support. As Zawed said. Lyndaship (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support Really? Eleven whole months we've know about this award and when its nominations open, and this comes up 5 minutes after nominations are formally opened? Not withstanding how people hate to mess with things while they are running, this shows very poor planning on the part of the position. It would have been better to have brought this up in Spring or Late Summer/ Early Fall, when we could have had a much more meaningful discussion on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support Per Alex Shih and Thewolfchild. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support Per Indy beetle below and TomStar81 above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support per the traditions of the project and the longstanding successful history (ahem) of this award. No confusion has been demonstrated, and to me the suggestion of it seems to border on being disruptive to the project. MPS1992 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support per project history. no confusion has been evident so far, i see no reason th turn everything upside down. And to keep the process affirmative. auntieruth (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support Although I suppose I could find another teacup that has a similar tempest. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support per Alex Shih & Kirill Lokshin. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC).
  18. Merrian-Webster defines historian as "a student or writer of history" or "a writer or compiler of a chronicle." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support per Ed. We are not engaged in original historical research, but we are writers of history - often the best available online, and sometimes the best available anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support per Nick and Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  21. Support. I don't see a compelling need to give the award to an editor (grammar, spelling, brevity) versus a historian (identification of main themes, discernment between multiple sources, context of article topic within a larger group of related articles.) Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  22. Per Kirill. Wikipedia doesn't care if you are a historian. No editor's say-so is RS, so it does not matter if said editor is a historian or not. Ultimately, this is like giving out barn stars and just as harmless. Srnec (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support (Weak) Edit - I fancy Rjensen's comment so am removing my "weak" qualifier and truncating my rationale. I think the rationale behind naming this Military history editor of the year is compelling and, if we were voting on an initial name for this instead of a renaming of something that already existed, I would probably lean towards it. That said, this isn't exactly a publicly-facing award. The 99.9% of people who come to WP just to read articles they perceive as being generated by some invisible force will never know it exists. And that small percentage of visitors who are actually active editors should, hopefully, understand this isn't an endorsement of anyone's qualifications or credentials. Given that, I weakly support maintaining the status quo since boats that rock tend to capsize. Chetsford (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support - contrary arguments are unconvincing. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  25. Support I have been a professional academic historian for 50+ years, but in both professional and common use the term "historian" is used for a person regardless of formal training who writes serious non-fiction on historical topics. The term "historian" therefore fits what our Wiki military editors do. Only a fraction of the people who publish history in books and magazines and history journals are actually professionals with graduate training. Indeed I think the majority of well-respected history writers in US and UK are self-taught (beyond the BA degree) and this is especially true I think in the field of military history--look at Bruce Catton, Winston Churchill, Edmund Morris, David McCullough, Max Hastings, Andrew Roberts Nigel Hamilton & Jon Meacham Rjensen (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  26. Support While I agree we are generally not professional historians (apologies to any who actually are), I doubt anyone will be using this award to pad their real-life CV. As such I don’t think it really matters what we call ourselves here. CThomas3 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support Derp! — Marcus(talk) 03:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Military history editor of the year

  1. Support: it sends the wrong message, IMO, for Milhist members to be positioning themselves as 'experts' and 'military historians'. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support: It may seem like wordsmithing, but the difference between "editor" and "historian" is important in defining what it is that we do here. We do not act as historians, even amateur ones, in our editing work. Evidence presented in the German War Effort Arbcom case demonstrates that there has indeed been confusion between there roles. –dlthewave ☎ 01:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Adamdaley (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support we are just humble editors. And the award is for the editors. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support: Clarification that the award is for actual work of editors here on wikipedia and not for unrelated military history efforts elsewhere. Though I don´t support the bitching or circumstances that started the whole discussion this year. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support we are not historians, military or otherwise. Historians research and weigh evidence; all we do is research and weigh, as a tertiary source, other people's findings. If the timing is less than serendipitious, then a simple renaming ceremony suggests itself. Changing titles is something we're very good at; incidentally I also do not understand the relevance of the GWE reference. ——SerialNumber54129 17:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support - for the reasons above - but for next year onwards. (Hohum @) 18:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support as per Hohum - no change this year. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Calling ourselves historians for editing Wiki is immodest. Keith-264 (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support Gbawden (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support A WP editor does not a historian make. Simon Adler (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support Historian (or historiographer, to be fussy) is a professional. I would, however, not be especially troubled if it was unchanged. Harvey Dent flip you for it 01:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Trekphiler: "Historian ... is a professional." - As defined by...? - wolf 07:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Thewolfchild: "As defined by...?: Me, Or, rather, that's my sense of the proper usage. What we do is "history buff" or "history student", since no pay is involved & no credentialling is required. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@Kirill Lokshin: Then call it "Amateur military historian of the year", if this is the concept that the project wishes to promote. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That would be missing the point. Amateur historians are historians; the label is not reserved to the professionals. Wikipedia was founded on the idea that amateurs and professionals could contribute side-by-side, without one group believing itself superior to the other, and I strongly object to any attempt to separate us into opposing camps on the basis of our academic credentials. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
"Editor" would be the one term that brings us all together. –dlthewave ☎ 01:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Where does that odd term come from? We "edit" Wikipedia in the sense that computer programmers edit programs, rather than in the sense that book editors edit books and newspapers ("a person who is in charge of and determines the final content of a newspaper, magazine, or multi-author book"). But to programmers, an editor is a software artefact, like WikEd or the Visual Editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
In agreement with dlthewave, no one should have this confusion about being Historian. I am curious to know what will be the criteria to nominate and to judge.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: - Are you aware that this is the 10th year for this contest? How the winners are nominated and ultimately selected has nothing to do with the current dispute regarding the contest name. You can, and should, ask that somewhere else. As for the name, "Military Historian of the Year", please show us where and when, at any point in the last 10 years, that using the word "historian", in relation to this contest, has caused any "confusion". Thanks - wolf 09:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "editor" is an inclusive term. In the context of the Wikipedia namespace it has a very specific meaning which isn't likely to be mistaken. It reminds me that we are equals and helps me to assume good faith, even in disputes that seem silly. "Historian" (Wiktionary) can simply mean "a writer of history" (which frankly is too small a definition for what MilHist editors do). But it might also be taken to mean someone who possesses specialized knowledge, which is not a requirement of editors in any WikiProject. I suspect we've each been involved in discussions with editors claiming various credentials and expertise who fail to understand how this had lead them to original research (ie: applying specialized knowledge to source material). It might be a stretch, but I don't think anyone wants this to be associated with that. I would also tend to think that recipients of the award are more likely to be expert Wikipedia editors than expert historians. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What's next, K.e.? WP can't use the term "editor" because it sends the wrong message? It might confuse people with the "professionals" that work in media organizations and publishing houses? Everyone should be referred to as "amateur editors"...? Do you really want people wasting their time here with this nonsense?

    K.e.coffman: "...it sends the wrong message, IMO, for Milhist members to be positioning themselves as 'experts' and 'military historians'" - Where in the title "Military Historian of the Year" is the word "expert"...? - wolf 01:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  •  • yawn • This is ridiculous. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This might alienate passionate editors who are not historians in profession, considering there are more editors who do not have such background. Then again, historians, who have devoted their energies in formal studies, may also be offended in a way if editors claim the title when the latter only dabbled in the said field. Thus, this is the crux of the issue. Provided there is an actual need to distinguish a "military historian" from a "military history editor", perhaps a background check on the nominees would be required. Following this logic, this might imply the creation of two separate awards: the "military historian of the year" for those who have formal degree in history, and the "military history editor of the year" for those who do not have formal studies. However, there might also be contributors in this project who do not hope for a compromise agreement. I can only pray that this would be helpful in the resolution of the issue by the time of the awarding. Arius1998 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well thankfully that option isn't on the table. This is a simple project-level contest to boost moral & content creation and encourage cooperation. Editors should not have to sacrifice their privacy just to prove they are a "professional" vs "amatuer" historian. I don't think we could even draw a clear line between the two. The contest has worked well for a decade, and has had this title the entire time. There is no need to change it. - wolf 04:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can understand the rationale for "military history editor", which in theory would discourage editors from asserting with authoritative tone rather than discussing the sources dispassionately. But I think the point raised by Kirill Lokshin is more worth considering. My opinion is that we shouldn't be so focused on the usage of such terms; otherwise eventually we may find ourselves debating over the usage of the term "editor" itself, a term that is by nature arbitrarily self-appointed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In the main, this increasingly appears to be a non-issue, if at all. Arius1998 (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I will ask Alex Shih and Arius1998, basically the same question as above, with their specific concerns; This is the 10th year of the contest, can either of you please show us where and when, at any point in the past 10 years, that this contest has led to any "alienated" or "offended" editors here?

      Or any winner that has "asserted with an authoratative tone" their status as "Military Historian of the Year" to try to forcibly win a debate as, opposed to just discussing an issue collegially? (or really imagine that occurring? "Look, I am the Military Historian of the Year, and as the historian in the this dispute, I say my edit is the correct one. End of discussion!") Thanks - wolf 09:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • My problem with "editor" is that when people here "editor" they tend to interpret it as "content contributor", which in turn appears to reinforce the position that the award is intended only for content contributors as opposed to the project members as a whole. We've had increasing issues with editors here trying to explain that this is for everyone, not just content contributors, and yet we've consistently struggled with getting people to nominate for tag and assess work, photography, spelling and grammar checks, bugle contributions, review work, etc. for this award. As for historian: this is an encyclopedia, meaning people are encouraged to contribute thoughtfully to the area of interest, and that area is usually an area with which they have some familiarity. If we were going to entertain a name change I would put forward a proposal for "expert" or "recorder" or "inscriber" or something or that nature. Historian is defined on site as "a person who studies and writes about the past" and that "Historians are concerned with the continuous, methodical narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all history in time." I for one like the title, and see no harm in retaining the name of the award. Lastly, on an related note, we (by which I mean all of us in the community) need to have these discussions before things go live, not after, since it does lends credence to Peacemaker's position that this is intended to disrupt to make a point. You all know we run this award once a year, every year, just like the coordinator election, so there really isn't a good reason to drag all this up right after the nomination when you could put it up for consideration in March-May and September-November when most of us our back in school and/or work and check here periodically by force of habit. Deciding to make an issue of this 5 minutes after its opened demonstrates a lack of planning for this and does, from an outside perspective, look very much like an attempt to rain on the parade for no apparent reason other than not liking it. If its on a schedule then you know when it comes around again, so plan for it and we can deal with the issues surrounding it before it gets here. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • K.e.coffman made their thoughts on the name of the award known back in June. I suspect that they did not originally intend to have the name of the contest changed, and that they were simply using the grievance as a way to frame their argument to oppose Sturmvogel's nomination. This is why I asked if they were procedurally opposing all nominations, and not just SV's. I have not yet gotten a satisfactory answer to that point. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well the answer I'm looking for is very much one or the other (I oppose all nominations procedurally unless "Military historian" is changed /or/ I, objecting to Sturmvogel's editing practices, oppose their nomination to be called a "Military Historian" of the year). I don't think that's a particularly difficult criteria to satisfy. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As I have mentioned, this appears to be a non-issue. I only presented the possible implications of the issue if it was relevant to the contest. By no means do I stand with any of them, and I will respect the overall resolution of this. As I have said, I hope this will be resolved in time for the awarding. Such things should not impede giving honors to where they are due, considering the valuable work they have devoted for the project and even beyond. Provided we might draw any lesson from here on, perhaps a review of our awards and awarding systems may be a good start come next year. Nothing wrong with tradition, but we must also continue our progress. For now, let us enjoy the season, and may the best people win this year's awards. My advanced congratulations. Keep it up! Arius1998 (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Indy beetle, Alex Shih, and TomStar81: The terminology that Wikipedia itself uses is "Wikipedians" and "editors"; see Wikipedia:Wikipedians: "Wikipedians or editors are the volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia's articles..." WP:MED members are not calling themselves medical doctors, WP:LAW members are not awarding Lawyer of the Year prizes, and neither should we. Regarding the timeline, I first raised the issue during the ArbCom case and then before the nominations went live: Reminder: Military historian of the year, on 21 November. I obviously had not known at that time that Sturm would be nominated. If the name stays the same, I would not support any nominees, except perhaps the MilHistBot, who is a bot :).
This from Sturmvogel 66 is quite telling, in re: why the award should not be called "Military historian of the year": There are no unbiased historians, everyone is biased one way or another. Our job as historians is to filter through those biases to come to as close an approximation of what actually happened as we possibly can. (emphasis mine) [22]. This assumes that anonymous users on the internet, with unknown credentials and ideological leanings, can "filter through biases" in the sources and determine "what actually happened". According to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, 45% of editors have secondary education, or less; 13% are 17 and younger. These individuals (all of us) also happen to be "historians". I'm quite confused about the first sentence as well: "There are no unbiased historians...", since it would imply that we (Wikipedia's historians) are biased, so how would we "filter through" our own biases? Wouldn't we introduce even more bias? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your position. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Those of us who write articles on historical topics are, by definition, historians. The insinuation that we're putting on daddy's shirt and pretending we're Hew Strachan is ridiculous. And if the concept that all historians are biased bothers you, that tells us a lot more about you than you realize. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Being biased is part of being human, in my not so humble opinion. I, myself, am quite biased against cruciferous vegetables, but I'd like to think that I could get past that should I ever feel the need to expand their article. Slightly more seriously, we need to learn our own biases and try to counter them to deliver neutral assessments. It's a life-long struggle and academics of whatever ilk are no less prone to bias than anyone else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I have to wonder, with the way K.e. keeps going on and on about Sturmvogel's "biases"; does he claim to be to be complately bias-free himself? A perfectly neutral editor? I don't think that's possible. But I do think it's time to let go of this grudge, it's not accomplishing anything. - wolf 17:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
"WP:MED members are not calling themselves medical doctors, WP:LAW members are not awarding Lawyer of the Year prizes" - surely you realize the difference between the professional, and legally protected, titles of "doctor" (M.D.) and "lawyer", as opposed to the generic designation of "historian"? Anyone interested in history can call themselves "historians", whereas people who call themselves "doctors" and "lawyers", without proper credentials, can go to jail; 1,2 & 3 - wolf 17:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Rjensen, The ed17, and Parsecboy: if we are going to use Merriam Webster's defintion, then it's missing an important part:
Definition of historian
1 : a student or writer of history
especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis
We don't "write" history here and we are not "by definition, historians". Wikipedia has policies against synthesis in article space: WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Instead, we summarise reliable sources that have already written on the subject. That's what Wikipedians do. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
we "summarize the RS" -- well yes and no. The main job of a wiki history editor is to SELECT on the basis of quality and importance from (usually) a LARGE body of published RS. only after the RS material is selected is it them summarized. Absent this quality control we would be left with random tidbits from many length RS and would lost the encyclopedic value. Rjensen (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Funny, I was pretty sure when I wrote the article on the Formidable-class battleships the other day, I was writing a history of a class of British battleships. Was I producing a scholarly synthesis? No, but then the dictionary definition doesn't say "only one who produces a scholarly synthesis". You have an awfully odd reading of the definition if you think it excludes people like you or me, K.e. Parsecboy (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Odd? No, it's just downright weird. MPS1992 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Parsecboy: in re [23], then the difference between you and me is that I don't presume to be a military historian. @Rjensen: you write The main job of a wiki history editor is... (emphasis mine) [24] -- this sort of makes my point, no? And what do you think happens when "Wiki historians" decide that it's okay to use primary, questionable, and / or unreliable sources, regardless of the author’s reputation, publisher’s outlook, reviews, or lack thereof? @Sturmvogel 66:, for example, claimed that "in general, the default judgement on Wiki is that a book is RS; it needs to be deemed non-RS by an authoritative source" [25] -- wait, what? --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Right - that's me done - it's clear that this pathetic little war against the project and its members isn't going to stop until everybody who disagrees with certain editors has been driven away. Well congratulation K.e.coffman you have managed to drive me away. I'm unwatching the Miltary History project pages and won't edit here again. I hope you are all proud.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That quote by Sturmvogel is over 2 years old. That kind of obsessive digging in pursuit of a personal grudge is not only ridiculously immature, but now considering Nigel Ish's post just above, is now driving editors away. You are becoming net-negative to the project, K.e, its time to drop this. - wolf 19:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, but what has changed in two years? Not much it seems. Here's a more recent comment from Sturm (summer 2018): "WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS are there to govern how we extract the worthwhile information from the dross contained in most books, whoever their publishers and authors might be." [26], suggesting that we "extract" information from "dross", which is WP:OR based on unreliable sources, rather than summarise reliable source.
Wolf, your obsessive commenting on my editing is well known to me from the WP:GUNS interactions; see
You might want to lay it off, or at least discuss with me on my Talk. (Note: I would generally leave such a message on the wolf's Talk, but he immediately removes my messages from his TP, so I'm posting this here). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)h
"Bias" might not be the word I'd use, but IMO we're bound to take a POV, based on experience, what we have (& haven't) read on a subject, & where we're from. (My view of Soviet history is not that of someone in Poland, frex.) And comparing the "historian" award to a "lawyer" award is essentially my objection to the name. "Amateur historian" is better, & seems to fit Milhist members better, but even that seems to suggest a specialization that may not strictly apply. Can I legitimately call myself that, when more of my contributions may be under WP:Motorsports, even if I'm technically a member of WP:Milhist? Can someone who's not actually a member? (And would that disqualify someone from receiving the award, something I haven't bothered to examine.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Trek, no one is limited to any one area of editing. You can work on historical topics (and thus be a historian) at the same time as you might write articles on motorcycles or dog breeds or pulsars. There is no specialization in history, to the exclusion of all else, required to be in the running for any award here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 10 December 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.

A old draft I have

Does anyone want to claim Draft:Military history of Lithuania? I've worked on it on and off for the past few months, but haven't really gotten much progress in it. Someone more experienced in reference and prose should pick it up. I've only added the lead, sections, and modern-day events (January Events, NATO, re-militarization). Thanks! –eggofreasontalk 18:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of dispute

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Military history#External links section removed and some additional contributors may be of some help. FYI - wolf 20:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

As you can see by the post just added by Rjensen, this dispute is becoming hostile. It has affected several milhist article and has the potential to affect many more. It would really be helpful if some editors contributed to help resolve this. - wolf 17:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparent criticism of this project

One Wiki editor writing at Talk:Military history has today grumbled that this Military History Project "Sounds like harassment intended to disrupt normal consensus-making then.--Ronz (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)" Do people here agree? I think it's very helpful. Rjensen (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

This is in regards to the same issue I posted a "Notice" about, just above. (Now "Notice of dispute"). FYI - wolf 17:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by opening this thread. I'm inclined to say "no", I disagree with Ronz, and if they don't like it they can have an RfC. Let that content dispute be hashed out where it belongs, unless you think we're in need of some serious reflection? I think their comment is relatively minor. Worse case scenario I see this thread becoming like every other damned dispute, just a re-litigation of the German war effort Arb case issues. If there's any reflection this project needs it's on that. At any rate, I think this thread should be closed. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
One Wiki editor writing... That's not what happened. Please withdraw the claim and let's end this. My comment [27] was not directed at this project, but a characterization of the previous comment in the discussion [28]. It has nothing to do with this project. Since a refactoring might be confusing, I clarified here. Let me know if further clarification is needed. --Ronz (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
OK we can close this. Rjensen (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

An appeal for a graphic designer

Is there anybody here who knows how to modify an image of a map with arrows and markings, representing military movements? I have a page from a book showing troop movements during the Battle of Lukaya, and it would be nice to have at least one image for the entire Uganda-Tanzania War subject. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:Graphics Lab can be slow, but is intended for exactly this.. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The best mapmaker I know is Goran tek-en (talk · contribs). He has expertise in exactly this area, and makes lovely maps. Make a request on his talk page at the Commons, and I'm sure you'll get a quick response. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

This discussion may be of interest to members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI

This dispute has now apparently spread to over twenty different articles that are Nazi bio's. Perhaps a central discussion should be held here? - wolf 00:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Space Command

Heads up, that since the new new UCC has been announced we’ve seen an influx of premature establishment edits on that and other UCC pages, the same phenomenon seen with US Cyber Command a year ago. Garuda28 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:List of statues on Paseo de la Reforma

Hello! So, this is kind of a quirky invite, but I want to post nonetheless. I am currently working on Draft:List of statues on Paseo de la Reforma, which lists a collection of statues installed in Mexico City. You'll notice there are many red links. Some, but not all, of the depicted subjects are military officers, and have entries at Spanish Wikipedia but not English Wikipedia. I am just now getting started on this list, so I don't know a lot about these people, but I wanted to bring this to WikiProject Military history's attention in case any project members are interested in creating stubs for the red-linked military people.

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Assault climbing

Seneca Rocks mentions assault climbing training (red-linked as here) in preparation for WWII action. (See [29]). I also found mention of it at Special Operations Training Group and indirectly at Assault course. I feel we could use an article on the subject--I have no doubt there must be sufficient WP:RS. I would create, but I was having trouble find the WP:RS that would be best. Anyone else want to do it? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Warship Comment

There is a RfC at Talk:Warship about the proper definition and scope of the article title. All WikiProject members are invited to participate and give your valuable perspectives at the talk page. Thank you! —Madrenergictalk 17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notice

An RfC of interest to this project, "Is the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht?", has been opened at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please join the discussion here. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

again...

"Wehrmachtbericht" seems to be coming up a lot lately and when it does, there is a great deal of lengthy discussion and debate. Perhaps we should look at setting up a task force with a designated page to centralize all enquiries, discussion, relevance guidelines, consensus, etc., etc. Just a thought... - wolf 18:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Tribuna Monumental, or Monumento a las Águilas Caídas ?

Are any Spanish speakers able to see if Tribuna Monumental should be moved to Monumento a las Águilas Caídas or not, based on secondary coverage? I'm quite sure the monument is notable, but I don't speak enough Spanish to assess which title is more appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notice

An RfC of interest to this project, "Is Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht? ", has been opened at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please join the discussion here. –dlthewave ☎ 05:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Navy Justice is currently a fiction article. I would expect a hatnote to articles concerning actual naval justice, but there's none right now. Is there such an article that could be linked to from a hatnote? -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done - wolf 16:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Would there be something more, or a list? Just the USN seems lopsided (though better than nothing) -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
But the series is about the USN JAG Corps, right? What else did you have in mind? - wolf 19:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The series is about the USN, but the term "Naval Justice" doesn't present itself as a term that is solely the preserve of the United States (and there's a mil-sf novel series that the publisher calls "JAG in Space"). Certainly captains masts and the skippers' word being law is naval justice (though perhaps more maritime law in general) and isn't solely American, nor the existence of shore patrol or naval provosts. A portal or outline of naval justice would do the trick. Or a list of USN JAG and its equivalents in other navies would be good. Indeed one of the first things that comes to mind when thinking "navy justice" is the courtmartial of a particular fifth-lieutenant for dereliction of duty when all the superior officers were killed when the bridge was hit... and that isn't USN. So the workings of navy justice in general and in other navies would ideally be somehow linkable. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
See Military justice there are links from there. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hatnotes are generally for linking to actual articles with similar titles, and not so much for possible topics. We don't link hatnotes to phantom articles. Navy justice, Naval justice, and Naval Justice have no redirects anywhere else, much less articles connected with them. Perhaps something needs sorting out, but add a hatnote after that's been done, not before. - BilCat (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP asked for a hatnote to a real world equivalent to this article about a series of fictional novels that appear to be about a US Navy JAG officer, and so there is now a hatnote that distinguishes between that and the actual Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy. I'm not familiar with the series, but unless it is about other national navies, then why would there be any more or different hatnotes? Not sure I can help you any further, as it is not clear what is wanted and what can be done about it. - wolf 16:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked this to a link to Military justice, which provides somewhat broader coverage. It's fair to say that Wikipedia's coverage of military justice topics is greatly under-developed. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

To all our gnomes, geeks, and other wikifolk of the Military History Project!! Pleasure again working alongside you this year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Merry Christmas everyone! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

David Gwynne-James

Hi all. Happy xmas. Just over from the Cricket WikiProject with a heads up that I've created the above chap, but his background as a military historian and army man seems far more significant than his one first-class cricket match. So posting it here if anyone fancies expanding that side of his life. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello again StickyWicket, thanks for the heads up. I've taken a stab at expanding it from the London Gazette and a college obituary. I'll see if there's anything more I can find (particularly relating to his military history writings) - Dumelow (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Think I've got as far as I can with this one now - Dumelow (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

United States military pay

someone alerted me on the fact that at the section "Historic pay raise chart" the "pay gap"-info hasn't been updated since 2010. Perhaps someone has newer information which he/she can add? Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Source was updated, so I've updated the article, also added a graph. (Hohum @) 18:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Paddy Ashdown's military awards

I've moved two uncited military awards from the article to Talk:Paddy Ashdown#Military awards as I can't immediately verify them: Naval General Service Medal and General Service Medal. I suspect though that they will be fairly easy to verify (or conclusively not verify) by someone who knows where to look. I'd appreciate it if someone can either do that checking or point me at where to search. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not the sort of medals that would normally get mentioned, they are not particularly noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they are British campaign medals, awarded to everyone who was in that theatre of operations during the conflict. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
They may be noteworthy to have stand-alone articles on them but as far as individual biographical articles are concerned we would not even mention them. Over 100,000 were awarded for Northern Ireland. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Because the British Empire fought so many wars it was considered unwarranted to create a special medal for each one. So they created the General Service Medal, and you get a clasp for each significant war or campaign. Some people racked up a dozen. While the medals are common, some of the clasps are very rare. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2018 now open!

Military historian of the year 2018
  • First place
    First place
  • Second place
    Second place
  • Third place
    Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2018 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2018. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

I respectfully decline, per my comment here: [30]. It would not be right for me to be a part of the process. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion ("Military historian of the year")

Discussion has migrated south, where a proposal on renaming the award(s) is being hammered out. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to oppose Sturmvogel 66's nomination, on procedural and substantive grounds. On the former, I've previously expressed concern about the suitability of the "Military historian of the year" terminology, but perhaps I was not specific enough: Reminder: Military historian of the year 2018. To clarify, it sends the wrong message, IMO, for Milhist members to be positioning themselves as 'experts' and 'military historians'. On the latter, some of Sturmvogel's comments over the years have been concerning:

  • In 2016, Sturmvogel participated in a coordinator-only thread where he shared his concerns about having had "encounters with the diehard anti-Nazis, to [his] chagrin". The discussion included the sentiment, apparently echoed by others, that alleged anti-Nazis were a "problem" and that "all coordinators [should] keep a weather eye out for this behaviour": Thread. Sturmvogel was the lead coordinator at the time, so this aberrant discussion happened on his watch, so to speak.

As a MILHIST member, I do not find that Sturmvogel's actions (or inactions) represent the best of the project, deserving the "historian" honour. I therefore must oppose. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Sturmvogel 66's comments are being taken out of context here. He specifically stated that Several years ago they published Globocnik’s Men in Italy, 1943-45: Abteilung R and the SS-Wachmannschaften of the Operationszone Adriatisches Küstenland, a history of Odilo Globocnik and his staff's activities in northeastern Italy after their successful murder of Polish Jews in Operation Reinhard. This is simply a factual statement that Globocnik was involved in the Holocaust, and Sturmvogel's usage of the term murder, which carries a connotation of illegality, indicates that he is not endorsing Globocnik's actions. Sturmvogel 66 should not be obligated to respond to such as blatant misinterpretation of his comments. Kges1901 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I evaluated the statement in context. Combining "successful" and "murder" in one's voice is offensive and inappropriate. If Sturmvogel had misspoken, the thing to do would have been to strike the offending comment, not ignore it. That said, we are still left with the matters of "Military historians"; "diehard anti-Nazis", and the "so what" comment in re: J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing. Actual historians deal with sensitive matters all the time; I do not see the same here. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I felt that there was little point in carrying on the conversation after you wilfully misunderstood my statement. Better to disengage than to carry on a pointless conversation. As for my comment about Fedorowicz, it is quite possible to extract useful factual information from non-NPOV sources, but you do not seem to agree and apparently wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater by trying to condemn a publisher's entire output without judging each book on its own merits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There are some talented, hard-working editors here, like Sturmvogel 66, who have for years now, volunteered countless hours of their time to write and maintain articles about military history. This is a subject that covers some of the ugliest events of human history, and as such, editors in this area are often obligated to research, write about and discuss some of these events, the details surrounding them and the people involved. And now we have user needlessly casting some very ugly aspersions at one these hard working editors. K.e.coffman, your comments are out of line. I suggest you strike them immediately and apologize to Sturmvogel 66. I would also suggest that an admin rev/del this entire section. This is sickening. - wolf 21:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • No, let it stand. Coffman has done some very good work on eradicating slanted coverage on Nazi-related topics and is to be applauded for his efforts. That I think that he goes sometimes goes overboard is my opinion, as is his taking offense at my comment(s). And you know what they say about opinions... IMO, military historian of the year should be about quality, not just quantity or time invested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, you are clearly being the bigger person here. I don't know how this helps the next person he may attack, but I will defer to your judgement. At the very least, I would ask that K.e. get off this bent about the term "historian". It does not seem to be impressing anyone, nor accomplishing anything. The manner in which the term is being used here is not at all inappropriate. It has been apart of this this informal, moral and content boosting contest for (as near as I can tell) 10 years now, without causing any harm, nor improperly inferring that anyone deemed the winner has any professional recognition that they are not otherwise entitled to. - wolf 22:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @K.e.coffman: Could you please clarify your position? If you really are so against the use of the term "Military historian", then wouldn't you be opposing all nominations on procedural grounds, not just Sturmvogels's? That you may especially dislike the honor of "historian" being bestowed on this user in light of their comments seems to be purely substantive. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • These sorts of attacks on other editors make editing in the field very much more unpleasant than it needs to be and are likely to discourage editors from contributing to the subject at all if they think that they will be subject to such abuse.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sturm: These are the baby, bathwater and chaff from the grain arguments: [31]. More examples at:
@Indy beetle: The second link also covers my concerns over the "historians" terminology.
As to whether I 'wilfully misunderstood' -- my reaction was informed by my prior encounters with anti-"anti-Nazi" editors (see thread, plus other such incidents). I also note that the pejorative "diehard anti-Nazis" has not been addressed; compare with "diehard anti-genocide". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Wolf: there's nothing in this thread that's not been discussed / linked during WP:ARBGWE; it's not some unexpected, new evidence. I don't think that your request to rev-delete the entire case would go over well. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I never suggested rev/del'ing the "entire case", just the posts here in which you cast ugly aspersions against Sturmvogel 66, but as Sturmvogel has already graciously let you off the hook, it's a moot issue. So let it go. - wolf 03:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Frankly, this thread is poisonous, petty and unworthy sniping directed at an outstanding contributor to this project, and an attempt to re-litigate aspects of the GWE case where K.e.coffman did not get what they wanted. This appears to be a blatant attempt to undermine an important way in which we reward editors for their contributions to the project. By long-standing tradition and in the spirit of collegiality, this award is determined by a simple approval vote, so there is no scope for opposing a nomination. The option you have under simple approval voting is to not vote for Sturmvogel_66. I am going to close and archive this thread as outside of process and start another one to establish consensus on the name of the award. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In my view this thread should be closed by an uninvolved coord, given the issue of the naming of the award is now being addressed in a separate thread, and because this constitutes an oppose which is deprecated in what has traditionally only been a collegiate and supportive environment of simple approval voting for the awards. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @K.e.coffman: has done an admirable job keeping nazi apologists of Wikipedia, I don't care too much if he's a little too hard on people from times, it's still 1000 times better than letting creeps slip through the fingers. If Vogel miss-spoke then he should apologize, learn better and go on. But the fact that he said "so what" to a "historian" not covering a subject objectively tells me he should not receive any awards. Working tirelessly does not make you a good editor, I know that from personal experience, I may work hour upon hours, but I sure as hell am not going to get any awards for being good.★Trekker (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Treker: There are no unbiased historians, everyone is biased one way or another. Our job as historians is to filter through those biases to come to as close an approximation of what actually happened as we possibly can.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Voting has now closed. Thanks to all who participated in nominating and voting. Awards will be made shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Rosiestep (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. - wolf 06:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Lyndaship (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  9. CPA-5 (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. 47thPennVols (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Constantine ✍ 10:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. Catlemur (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  9. Dumelow (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  10. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  11. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  12. wolf 06:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  13. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  14. Zawed (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. Indy beetle (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Lyndaship (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. - wolf 06:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. Kges deserves recognition for quality articles in areas that haven't received enough attention and, as I think I've said elsewhere, his conduct during disagreements is exemplary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. GELongstreet (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Catlemur (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. Zawed (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  9. CPA-5 (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Dumelow (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. Euryalus (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. 47thPennVols (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. GELongstreet (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. CPA-5 (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. Worthy of the accolade any year but like to recognise Tom for his colossal effort producing thoughtful op-eds plus timelines of events for the centenary of World War I in the Bugle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Zawed (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Euryalus (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Indy beetle (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Constantine ✍ 10:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Kierzek (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Kierzek (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. GELongstreet (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Catlemur (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Dumelow (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. Factotem seems to have been everywhere, producing quality articles and delivering insightful reviews, including detailed source checks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Like Ian says, Factotem has been on point here and at WP:CGR for the last couple years. SpartaN (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Kierzek (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:20, 27 December 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.

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2018 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2018
  • First place
    First place
  • Runners up
    Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2018 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2018. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

Voting

Voting has now closed. Thanks to all who participated in nominating and voting. Awards will be made shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2017.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Kierzek (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  9. Catlemur (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  10. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  11. wolf 06:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  12. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  13. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  14. Chetsford (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  15. Not just for her articles but for solid source reviewing, which we can't have enough of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. GELongstreet (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Chetsford (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. 47thPennVols (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Dumelow (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Arrived like a whirlwind with a host of useful articles and shows no sign of slowing down. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Gog the Mild writes very excellent articles, but my vote has more to do with the volume of reviewing they undertake (e.g. 67 GAN noms reviewed). Chetsford (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. GELongstreet (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  9. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  10. Catlemur (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  11. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  12. Reidgreg (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  13. Dumelow (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  14. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  15. wolf 06:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  16. Prolific publisher. Thorough researcher. Quick-witted writer of engaging, accurate content. Insightful, collegial, constructive editor. Definitely deserves both of this year's Milhist awards. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  17. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. GELongstreet (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  1. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Some very good articles in a variety of less prominent areas, which is always welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. Dumelow (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. - wolf 06:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  8. Zawed (talk) 00:19, 23 December 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.

Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia

Very useful editing guidelines resource - thanks User talk:Go Phightins! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC - Operation Storm

There is a RfC that is of interest to this project here. Feel free to have your say. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year all! May your new year be good and prosperous! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year

The Teamwork Barnstar
This Teamwork Barnstar is awarded jointly and severally to every member of the Military History Project in recognition of a year of low drama, high activity building of an encyclopaedia. Collegiately you have made the project space a comfortable place to work in such a natural, even graceful, way that what you have achieved seems normal. Which it is not. You have collectively built it by the sweat of your keyboards and the maturity of your inputs. I, for one, intend to revel in it. Thank you. Wear this barn star with pride. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

RFDs

Various redirects to Mercenary have been listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 1#January 1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I was a stranger and you took me in

Just over a year ago, as an inexperienced editor with a few hundred gnomish edits to my account, I discovered the Wikipedia Military History Project. I proceeded to make a high proportion of the standard newbie errors and a couple of novel ones. I was met with nothing but assumptions of good faith, a huge willingness to advise and assist, and a good humoured disinclination to let me get away with any edits which didn’t meet minimum standards. I have been humbled by the time and effort editors from this project have been willing to commit to (relatively) gently correcting my ham fisted errors and knocking into shape the near flow-of-consciousness prose I can come out with. There has been a cheerful, unspoken, and I assume telepathically communicated agreement that I needed to ratchet up my standards. As I have grown more experienced my input regarding others’ edits, however poorly expressed, has invariably been taken in the way which I intended; even when strong opinions have clashed I struggle to recall anything I would characterise as a disagreement. You should all be proud of yourselves. I wish that I could buy each and every member of the Project a beer/coffee/beverage of your choice; sadly the best I can do is ask you each to give yourself a well earned pat on the back. You are an example not just to Wikipedia but to the wider world. A very happy New Year to you all; may your keyboards never cool and may all of your sources be reliable. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Bravo, Gog! For a personal perspective, you are very welcome. You have been a breath of fresh air, and your workrate and quality continue to impress. Your dual awards this year are a testament to that. Onwards and upwards! Peacemaker67(click to talk to me) 23:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Wow, what a great way to open the new year! Gog, you humble us all with your kind thoughts. Thanks for your hard work and congratulations on your well-deserved awards. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
I apreciate your positive opening for 2019. This gave me a positive and hopeful feeling for 2019. Bravo! Thanks for your amazing work in 2018. Let's make this year an amazing year too. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gog. It has been an absolute pleasure to work alongside you this year and you have produced some outstanding articles. Here's hoping for a similarly productive 2019! - Dumelow (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It is nice to read some positive feedback herein. Congrats on your award and keep up the good work. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Great to hear it. We were all newbies once. I made a lot of mistakes too. I'm often afraid that we've made the place a good deal more rather than less complicated since then. But there's always room for people willing to learn. Your awards are well-deserved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not edit in the Milhist project all that often, but we interacted during some B-class reviews. I enjoyed the interactions and your politeness during the process. You have done a good job getting articles up to what I consider a readable standard (B-class), which is a very important step that not a lot of people focus on (no fancy stars associated with it!). Have a productive year and keep at it. Kees08 (Talk) 20:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Military service as defining or non-defining

Please provide feedback on military service as defining or non-defining for categorization with respect to WP:NONDEFINING. Perhaps I’m being non-NPOV, but I think military service is almost always defining and should generally be included as category for an biography article in the same way as you would generally always include a category for a school.

In the case of Freddie Bartholomew, I added Category:United States Army Air Forces personnel. This category was removed with the editor saying it was non-defining – see here for the reason.

As a rule of thumb, what would be good criteria for including a military service cat? Completion of bootcamp? At least one year? What if someone was medically discharged? Is there already criteria for this? Thanks for your input, and Happy New Year! Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

In the case you mention, his military service seems non-defining and pretty incidental, given it takes up a single small paragraph and he did nothing notable in a military sense. There's not a criteria or guideline for this that I'm aware of, it's done by consensus on a case by case basis. I do note that Spencer Tracy's navy service is categorised even though his service also seems pretty incidental. Happy New Year! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that military service is "almost always defining". In the era of mass conscription (from the 19th to the late 20th century), a high proportion of men served in the military in many countries. During the world wars, almost all men within eligible age ranges served in combatant countries. In most cases this was involuntary, and in almost all instances their military service lasted for only a few years and did not have a significant impact on their later life. In modern militaries which use only voluntary service, enlisting is a bigger deal than it used to be as it's now fairly unusual in most countries. Military service is also much more likely to be a long-term profession than it used to be. However, many people still serve for relatively short periods though as they don't reenlist. As I understand it, many recruits also fairly swiftly leave the services for one reason or another, as modern militaries are picky about who they recruit and retain and (generally) don't want to hang on to new recruits who don't want to be there. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Nick-D. Compulsory draft laws picked young men for a few years but at the level of biographies of famous people who appear in Wikipedia, the articles we have on them indicate to me that few draftees were shaped or defined in a major way by that youthful experience. Careerists and wartime heroes can be a different matter but they are not well represented in Wikipedia outside the military history articles. Rjensen (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I pile-on agree with Nick-D, and would add that in countries with peacetime conscription (Finland, South Korea, Israel, Greece, Turkey and many other current examples, and most importantly from the en-wiki viewpoint, the UK until 1963), military service would be no more a "defining experience" than any other short-term job undertaken for one or two years after leaving school. I'd also consider it worth pointing out that even for military personnel in a major conflict their service is not necessarily going to be of any particular importance to their lives, given how many ground crew, logistics, administrative and various light/restricted duties roles there were (my grandfather volunteered two days after Pearl Harbor, and in the next four years the most exotic posting he had was to Laredo). ‑ Iridescent 17:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Nick-D. I see a fair number of pages show up in military RfDs only because the article reads, frex, "He was a lieutenant in the Army." Unless the military service contributes to notability, I don't think an individual should be categorized.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Speaking for myself, I usually don't consider it meaningful unless they reach a mid-rank in the service (say E4-6 or O4-6); anything below that and its just post high school or collage time in service to get job experience or pay off debt. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
To me, if their military service warrants a mention early in the lead, it is also probably defining. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That's a good rule of thumb. Rank is not so important, but military service must contribute to notability in some way. So Audie Murphy is in, but Elvis Presley is out. My grandfather drove a truck between Alice Springs and Darwin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Heads-up: new military history book says 'no "clean" Wehrmacht'

We've had several debates about this ..[32] Buckshot06 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please help a new editor stuck in redirect hell

See WP:Teahouse#Please remove a redirect. I've taken a look at it and found it involves a double redirect that doesn't make much sense to me, however this topic is outside my comfort zone. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Thanks for jumping into the pond on my behalf. I truly appreciate. For others who might take notice. I am interested in writing an article on the USMC Joint Assault Signal Companies of WWII, maybe adding to info on V Amphibious Corps and 4th Marine Division. Thats for starters.I would welcome collaboration..Oldperson (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Accolades from 2018

I have completed my review of 2018 with regards to milhist quality contributions and I have compiled the following mentions of the project. Submitted for your consideration, these articles were cited or viewed in some significant way in 2018:

Congrats to all who worked on them. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

T-72

The article on the T-72 could use some work. Many unsourced claims. T-72#Gun has numerous paragraphs and is completely unsourced. Quite a lot of text in the article--some trimming might be in order. For such an important tank, I think we can do better. I feel a bit overwhelmed by the work involved in getting that article ship-shape. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

afd

This may be of interest to members [[34]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Erich Hartmann, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red editathon

Just a heads up that there is a "Women in War and Peace" editathon running throughout January over at WikiProject Women in Red which may be of interest to project members - Dumelow (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oswald Boelcke RFC

Hello,

There is a Request For Comment concerning the legacy of World War I flying ace Oswald Boelcke. Comments from interested editors can be posted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oswald_Boelcke#Request_for_comment:_Boelcke's_legacy Georgejdorner (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer and source reviewer needed

G'day again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Hulao has a couple of supports and an image review, and needs another pair of eyes to look it over as well as a source review. If you can spare the time, I'm sure the nom would appreciate it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the nominal start of the Second World War. Suggesting this might be a theme? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_149&oldid=1232551682"