User talk:JMOprof

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, JMOprof, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For The Transhumanist...[edit]

Hello TT-

I had the design script from Wikipedia:User_page_design_center/Scripts (your monobook.js) successfully installed, and all was fine. I forgot where I was and cleared and saved my vector.js page. I tried to undo my change, but the script not longer works. I reinstalled from your monobook.js but it still doesn't work. I turned the WikEd gadget on, and it doesn't work either. All was fine this morning until my mistake. I have cleared my cache. What else may I try? Thanks. For what it's worth, it still works great in my commons page. Might that in fact be the problem? JMOprof (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I went and updated Wikipedia:User page design center/Scripts. Don't copy my monobook.js page, as I haven't used that in years. The page you want is User:The Transhumanist/vector.js.
Most of the scripts I use are now available as gadgets. The ones I have checkboxed in Special:Preferences/Gadgets#preftab-9 include:
  • Navigation popups
  • Twinkle
  • WikEd
  • Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page
  • Add a sidebar menu of user-defined regex tools, with a dynamic form for instant one-use regex
I hope the above explanation helps. The Transhumanist 19:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: For other tools and tips, check these other project pages I put together:
P.P.S.: Good luck, and have fun!

TT--

Thank you. I have copied your vector.js into mine. I also emptied my monobook.js (thinking that was the problem earlier) However, no change is made to my editor. I'm still stuck with the default. I also can't select WikEd as a gadget and make it work. I reload the file per the instructions, and I've cleared my cache. I've confused something somewhere. Any other ideas? I had it working fine before lunch  ;-( JMOprof (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:WikEd works with Firefox. It does not work with Internet Explorer. If you do not have Firefox installed, I highly highly recommend you install it. The Transhumanist 20:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

TT - I do use Firefox. I turned on WikEd this morning, and cleared my vector.js. Reading that your script gave me more options (Lupan's) I tried to go backwards. That's how I got in trouble. Now I have nothing ;-( JMOprof (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tracking down the WikEd problem[edit]

I find it interesting that WikEd doesn't work as a script or as a gadget. That makes me think it might be an incompatibility problem with something else you have loaded on your Wikipedia account.

I suggest you remove all scripts and gadgets, and activate only the WikEd gadget, to see if that works. If it loads, there will be a little pencil&pad icon at the top right corner of your wiki-window. If it is in color, WikEd is activated. If it is in black & white, it is deactivated. Clicking on it toggles between WikEd and the default editor.

Try WikEd by itself without any other scripts/gadgets, and let me know if that fixes your problem. The Transhumanist 22:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind - I just got your latest message. I'm glad you found the icon! The Transhumanist 22:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way...[edit]

Do you use WP:AWB? The Transhumanist 19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

TT-
I'd not heard of it. I checked it out. I do my stuff on a Mac, and so it seems not applicable. JMOprof (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
It's one of the most powerful tools for editing Wikipedia. It's a bot program for editing large batches of Wikipedia pages. Using the regex language in AWB, you can do almost anything to a group of pages.
When I don't have access to AWB, I use WP:LINKY (a Firefox add-on). Do you use Firefox? The Transhumanist 20:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to give it a shot. Thanks. JMOprof (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Userreq + hook discussion[edit]

Thanks for expanding the article. Two things:

  1. You'll probably want to add {{userreq}} to the top of User:JMOprof/Charles E. Loughlin now that the article's been moved. This will have an administrator delete that now-unnecessary userspace page.
  2. What do you propose the hook should be? We can discuss the hook here on your talk page to avoid having it on Elliott Loughlin's talk page. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure. Thanks for the tip. I didn't know how they went away ☺ Loughlin was truly on my list. My Dad knew all the WW2 submariners. They've become a hobby. Hook? Not sure what you mean, but I'm guessing that it has to do with the "Did you know?" I would think that you could be guilty of negligence at a general court-martial and still rise to Rear Admiral is a start, with the fact that Nimitz in pique awarded the Board members more than they awarded Loughlin for a kicker. JMOprof (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The "hook" is the name for the quick, one-line factoid from a newly created and/or expanded article that appears on Wikipedia's main page (see User:Jrcla2/Awarded_contributions#Did you know? for the list of DYKs that I've made). Every 6 hours, a new set of DYK articles shows up on the homepage's bottom left section. All of the nominations waiting to be reviewed and moved into the queue are found at Template talk:DYK. The facts themselves cannot be negative or disparaging in nature, and so the fact that Loughlin was court-marshaled would disqualify that specific hook.
My suggestion for a hook is: "...that Elliott Loughlin was an All-American basketball player at the United States Naval Academy before he fought in combat and earned two Navy Crosses, two Legions of Merit and one Silver Star? Jrcla2 (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I personally think that if I to rose Rear Admiral following a trial, that would be a positive, ☺ but this is my first time in these waters. Your hook as you wrote it implies the LOMs were for combat. Maybe: "...that Elliott Loughlin was an All-American basketball player at the United States Naval Academy before he fought in combat and earned two Navy Crosses, and a Silver Star, followed by two Legions of Merit late in his career?" JMOprof (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this is where my lack of Navy knowledge comes in (re: not knowing anything about the service awards). One key component about DYK hooks is that they need to be both interesting and concise. We need to figure out a sentence that is relatively short yet also draws the reader in.
Alt suggestion: "...that during Elliott Loughlin's career in the United States Navy, he earned two Navy Crosses, two Legions of Merit and one Silver Star?" (The way this is phrased now does not imply he received all of these during combat) Jrcla2 (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a tad wordier, maybe: "...that during All-American basketball player Elliott Loughlin's U.S. Navy career, he earned two Navy Crosses, two Legions of Merit and a Silver Star?" JMOprof (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I like it. Here is the DYK nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Elliott Loughlin. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever comes of it, thank you for the help and insights. Do we now just watch the main page? JMOprof (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding it, this was truly a joint effort. What will happen now is another editor who wishes to have his new article on the main page will review our article at the link I gave you. He'll be double checking several criteria, including the date of creation, the length in characters, that it is referenced, it's not plagiarized, and that the hook we provided is both written in the article as well as referenced in the article. Don't worry – we check out fine on all accounts.
Next, once it's verified, it will just sit in Template talk:DYK until one of the overseers of the Main Page DYK decides to include it in a batch of articles. It will move to a queue that will be set to upload on a certain date at a certain time (for a point of reference, I've had my own DYK submissions last anywhere from 12 hours to 3 weeks until they made it on the main page, there's really no telling how long we might have to wait). Once the article "goes live" on the main page, a bot will automatically leave a message on your talk page that looks like this. You'll be credited with a DYK article. And in a nutshell, that's how it works. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'll keep watch. I, er-ah, appropriated two of your userboxes--the ones that point to Wiki Commons and back. ☺ JMOprof (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Single DYKs can't exceed 200 characters (that is characters on the page, which does not count wiki markup.). 7&6=thirteen () 17:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Elliott Loughlin[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Explanation[edit]

About this, I was driven in mistake by the disambiguation page Atlantic Fleet. Sorry. --Bonty (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I turned it back. JMOprof (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Answer to: Possible other Courage Awards[edit]

Hello -

I follow the Navy Cross page and saw your added category of Courage Award. I see that the Soldier's Medal ("heroism not involving actual conflict") is also in that category. It would seem appropriate then that the Gold and Silver Lifesaving medals ("The Gold Lifesaving Medal is authorized if the individual attempting the rescue did so at extreme peril and risk of life. For all other rescues, the Silver Lifesaving Medal is authorized.") should also make the cut. Certainly heroic actions. Thoughts? --best, JMOprof (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2012

I agree 100%. I found the category completely by coincidence and noticed how few awards had been linked to it, I started last night and did about 75 links. Please feel free to add any award from any country that fits the bill. Cheers! Fdutil (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Done. I also added the Coast Guard Medal (Soldier's Medal equivalent--Navy/Marine already included). On a related topic, could you advise how to go about adding a category for recipients of the Lifesaving medal? Thanks. --best, JMOprof (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Try this Categorization#Creating_category_pages Cheers! Fdutil (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. An interesting thing here. Your link took me to a close topic, but not it. This one Creating Categories is it. It would seem to be the same place, but it's not. The category Recipients of the Gold Lifesaving Medal is up! Thank you for your help. ...Best, JMOprof (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A useful pair of tools[edit]

Always look in google books here. Also you can paste a book url into here and it will make a full ref for you to copy. 7&6=thirteen () 10:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

JMOprof, thanks. There are so many better ways to do stuff, and so many sources of information, that I am always learning. 7&6=thirteen () 14:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Hazard Perry[edit]

Bibliography Paullin, Charles Edward (October, 1918). The Battle of Lake Erie (a collection of documents, mainly those by Oliver Hazard Perry). Cleveland, Ohio: The Raufin Club. Retrieved August 18, 2011.  . 7&6=thirteen () 19:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this on line version in Wikipedia's List of books about the War of 1812.
Skaggs, David Curtis; Welsh, William Jeffrey, editors (1991). War on the Great Lakes: Essays Commemorating the 175th Anniversary of the Battle of Lake Erie. Kent State University Press. Retrieved May 24, 2012.  7&6=thirteen () 10:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History introduction[edit]

DYK for Ronald Arthur Hopwood[edit]

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


Macdonough[edit]

Ahoy! Thanks for your contributions to the Thomas Macdonough article. I returned the ref's to their original format. Listing page numbers next to a ref number in among the text is confusing. Page numbers work better next to author and/or title name in ref section, which is the standard used in history articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course. I cleaned up some leftovers between the two of us. ☺ One that I didn't know how to handle is the name spelling in the discussion of changing the name spelling. It looks like we vary from his own choice .... JMOprof (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Navy Distinguished Service Medal[edit]

Hello JMOprof! I have noted that you removed the name of Kevin Francis Delaney from the list of Navy Distinguished Service Medal. From the information I have gathered from the reference provided by User:Jkacmarynski I think this is a valid addition to the list and a reliable source as a reference. ₫ӓ₩₳ Talk to Me. Email Me. 04:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't me. History says its User:EricSerge JMOprof (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Am really sorry for mistaking your entry for another on the history page for the article in question. I have moved the discussion to the talk page of the article. Hope you understand and forgive me :) ₫ӓ₩₳ Talk to Me. Email Me. 15:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edward Moran gallery[edit]

Can I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Galleries#Image_galleries. I removed the gallery you inserted on Edward Moran; it seemed to be an undifferentiated dump of all of the EM images on commons, and completely overpowered the insubstantial article. See also Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY#REPOSITORY. Thanks. --20:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the projectwhat coordinators do) 09:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate article on Thomas Macdonough[edit]

I surfed into this article User:JMOprof/JDE because it shows up on the categories listed on the bottom of the article. It looks like a duplicate of Thomas Macdonough except for the painting in the infobox. Maybe delete it or just remove the categories?--Nyctc7 (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi--Thanks. I took care of it. This is my draft page, awaiting future brilliance ☺ . I've learned a lesson...I had not thought it would be listed. JMOprof (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this happened to me as well Face-smile.svg--Nyctc7 (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Mitscher[edit]

I didn't mean to revert your correction on the note on the Mitscher photo. That was an accident from a cut and paste. You were perfectly correct.Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No concern. I haven't being doing this too long, but long enough to make that mistake myself, and I guessed that was what it was. I jumped in in the middle. People should wait to make their edits after all our edits are done. ☺ JMOprof (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI?[edit]

Template:Sortname Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012[edit]

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) 08:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor[edit]

Greetings, I just wanted to suggest adding Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor to Template:Medal of Honor recipients.

Hi, thank you, and Happy New Year. I don't quite understand. I added the TC to the categories:
And I created a category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tiffany_Cross_Medal_of_Honor_recipients.
All TC recipients are already on other lists and categories. What is it you would like me to do? Please be basic ☺ I can't even figure out how to wikilink to a category in prose ☹ JMOprof (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem, and Happy New Year back. I was just suggesting you add the list to the Navigation template with all the Medal of Honor lists. I did it here though so you can see what I was talking about. Kumioko (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
"Ah-ha," he said dimly. Thank you. I appreciate the help. Stepping up to a higher level of editing ☺ ...best, JMOprof (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem, it takes a while to learn this place, your doing great. I was also going to let you know I am in the process of adding this list to simple (the Simple English version of Wikipedia, for those who are learning English). I also wanted to say if you were interested in getting this list to featured status you could use Marine Corps Brevet Medal as a guide. I got that one featured a while back and its similar to this one in many respects. Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I would hope so. Your Brevet Medal article was my model (truly). Is there a "featured list" how to like there is for DYK? ...best, JMOprof (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh ok cool, glad it helped. There is some instruction at Featured list criteria but nothing really detailed. You could ask User:The Rambling Man he has been working there for years and might have some other instructions. I haven't done a featured list in some time and I don't edit articles much these days here. Kumioko (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thank you so very much for taking an interest. JMOprof (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem I'm glad there are more folks showing an interest. There were only a couple of us for a long time and as I mentioned my editing has tappered off. I hope you don't mind I changed some things on the table to match the other lists and some things that I knew would come up if it goes for FLC. Here are a couple more suggestions that might help but I wanted to leave a note before doing anything:
  1. I think it would be better to use the Army Center of Military History links as references here rather than the Military times one if possible. Then you can just link it once in the header column rather than each individual row. I did this on some of the other lists already like World War I.
  2. The Marines also have this one
  3. Normally there shouldn't be any refs in the lead. Since the lead should summarize the list, the information should be in the body and referenced there.
  4. There are a couple places that need to be referenced like the end of the List section.
Please let me know what you think. I'd be willing to help out to get this promoted. Kumioko (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, thanks. It was from your WWI list that I found your name ☺ I'ved used a "master" ref in a column head, and a later editor came through and put it in every cell.
For No. 1, it would have to be a mixture of some sort. Byrd, Bennett, and Schilt awards are not for WWI actions. As it is, it's consistent, at the expense of 22 added refs. One master ref at the top, three more at the bottom? Four refs at the top? Some other choice...every cell, lots of letters?
No. 2 won't be needed, I'd think, but I've put it in my toolbox.
Can you explain more on No. 3?
Old school training...Facts first cited are ref'd. Not true here? ...best, JMOprof (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Decided on a Header Note pointing to the history center unless otherwise noted. ...best, JMOprof (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013[edit]

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) 12:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013[edit]

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) 07:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013[edit]

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) 03:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Surigao Strait[edit]

When you check, you'll find that the ships engaged included the cruiser HMAS Shropshire and the destroyer HMAS Arunta. Hence, we use the term "Allied forces". Face-smile.svg Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye - You can say Kinkaid was in overall command, but you can't say he was the commander at Surigao Strait. This is what the Oldendorf article says: "On 24 October 1944, Oldendorf was the commander of Task Group 77.2 at the Battle of Surigao Strait. Oldendorf led the defeat of the Japanese Southern Force. He deployed his powerful force of battleships and cruisers in a classic battle line formation across the Surigao Strait, crossing the T of his opponent." Here's what Morison says "At 1443 [Kinkaid] ordered Rear Admiral Jesse B. Oldendorf, who commanded all Seventh Fleet fire support ships at the Leyte landings to prepare to meet the enemy. Oldendorf disposed of his force with deadly effectiveness..." My emphasis in both places. In other words, there is a commander between Kinkaid and the gunline. Oldendorf's flagship was the Louisville. He was there. Kinkaid was on Wasatch and he was not. History gives the glory here to Oldendorf. I gladly, gratefully, concede the point on the Allies. ☺ JMOprof (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Oldendorf was in command of the gunline, which was the destroyers, cruisers and battleships. But he did not command the PT boats. Kinkaid was in charge of both. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hawkeye - Kinkaid's original org charts are here and here. There is always a commander between Kinkaid and the forces. To give a modern parlance to it, Kinkaid was one echelon removed from the action. To give Kinkaid credit for Surigao Strait is to give Nimitz credit for Midway. Technically its true, but it's not the usual inference. I'm searching, but I believe Oldendorf positioned all the players, PT's included. I did find this but based on your above input, I don't give it total credence. JMOprof (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I also found this: "The battle was succinctly outlined by Fleet Adm. Ernest J. King in a report to the Secretary of the Navy: "The enemy was first met by our PT boats, then in succession by three coordinated destroyer torpedo attacks, and finally by devastating gunfire from our cruisers and battleships which had been disposed across the northern end of the strait by the officer in tactical command, Rear Adm. (now Vice Admiral) J. B. Oldendorf. The enemy was utterly defeated. This action is an exemplification of the classical naval tactics of 'crossing the T.' Rear Admiral Oldendorf had deployed his light forces on each flank of the approaching column and had sealed off the enemy's advance through the strait with his cruisers and battleships. By means of this deployment he was able to concentrate his fire, both guns and torpedoes, on the enemy units before they were able to extricate themselves from the trap. The Japanese lost two battleships and three destroyers almost before they could open fire. The heavy cruiser and one destroyer escaped, but the cruiser was sunk on the 26th by our planes." " from here. My emphasis. JMOprof (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This is Morison's summary of PT action at Surigao (Leyte, P210): Altogether, they fired 34 torpedoes, all but two of which ran "hot, straight, and normal," but obtained only the hit on Abukuma of Admiral Shima's Second Striking Force. They neither stopped nor confused the enemy, and were chased away by his gunfire.
Later Morison says (Leyte, p240): ...the immediate factors the made for victory were the tactical dispositions and battle plan worked out by Admiral Oldendorf and his staff, the early contact reports sent in by the motor torpedo boats, and the skillful torpedo attacks by destroyer squadrons, which left little for the gunfire ships to do. JMOprof (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This is the entire bit Vego (The Battle for Leyte, 1944, p262) says about Kinkaid and Surigao Strait: At about 0915 [24 Oct], once the probable destination of the Southern Force had been determined, Kinkaid and his staff conducted an estimate of the situation. They correctly anticipated that the enemy force could arrive at the western entrance of Surigao Strait at about 0200 on 25 October. All units were notified via TBS to anticipate a night engagement. Kinkaid also convened a meeting of task group commanders during which preliminary plans were drawn up. He issued assignments orally; messages were to follow later on. Kinkaid's order stated that an enemy force of approximately two battleships, three heavy cruisers, three light cruisers, and 10 destroyers could arrive at the southern end of Surigao Strait by midnight. In planning an ambush, Oldendorf...
Kinkaid's name does not appear again in the battle discussion until after it was over when Vego transitions into Samar. "It can be contended that Kinkaid gave too much freedom to act to Oldendorf by allowing him to use his battle line to pursue remnants of Nishimura' force, thereby uncovering the vulnerable beachhead at Leyte." Vego's conclusion about Surigao Strait goes on "The key to Oldendorf's success was a masterful plan and it skillful execution..." Referring in my mind to Oldendorf's plan for the ambush. JMOprof (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Good points, but Kinkaid moved Oldendorf as a chess piece into the specific location of the Surigao Strait, specifically to deal with the Southern Force. Oldendorf had freedom to form his own plan, but his task was set within the larger picture. Historian/author Walter S. Zapotoczny quotes James D. Hornfischer to say this: "Admiral Kinkaid and his staff correctly surmised that the Japanese Southern Force would attempt to reach Leyte Gulf through Surigao Strait. Shortly after noon Kinkaid alerted every ship of the Seventh Fleet to prepare for a night action. Rear Admiral Oldendorf, commanding Kinkaid's Bombardment and Fire Support Group, was ordered to the northern entrance of Surigao Strait with his very powerful force, and to prepare to meet the enemy ships. After Rear Admiral Oldendorf had formed his battle plan he called Rear Admirals Weyler, commanding the battle line, and Berkey, commander of the Right Flank cruisers and, destroyers aboard his flagship USS Louisville for a conference to discus the plan and to insure all commanders understood his intent."[1]
Anthony P. Tully says "Kinkaid had six battleships, four heavy and four light cruisers, twenty-nine destroyers and escorts, eighteen escort carriers, and forty-five patrol torpedo boats (PTs). Kinkaid was placing the vast majority of these at Oldendorf's disposal to smash the Japanese thrust toward Surigao Strait... Kinkaid resolved to have his bombardment battleships and cruisers move into position and intercept... At 1215 Kinkaid issued his instructions and battle plan: 'Prepare for night engagement'... Interestingly enough, Kinkaid decided to retain direct control of the PT boats during the battle and did not place them under Oldendorf's authority."
So we have Kinkaid giving Oldendorf a large amount of freedom to hit the enemy with a great array of battle units, but Kinkaid retained the PT boats as his own to give a sort of combined presence on the scene. As well, Kinkaid placed Oldendorf in the right spot. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for chiming in. But isn't this like giving Bradley credit for Bastogne because he put McAulife there? Thomas Culter, writing in Naval History (behind a paywall unfortunately) says "Approaching through the confined strait would force the Japanese to maintain a narrow formation. Oldendorf's disposition of forces would put the oncoming Japanese force into the jaws of several succeeding pincers, as PT boats and destroyers gnawed at his flanks along the way." It's clear from Morison (Leyte, p211) that the PT boats made position reports to the destroyers, and that that was their most significant contribution. They were supporting Oldendorf. JMOprof (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(responding to an invitiation) As I'm reading the page (& not going to outside sources...), I'm seeing Kinkaid as what's technically "senior officer present afloat", & so, whether he was in tactical control or not, he gets the credit. Same as Fletcher should at Midway (& as Spruance insisted). It might need explaining, to people who aren't clear on the tradition. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Trek - Thank you. SOPA today is an in-port concept, but that is the tradition. A "senior" gets credit for the actions of a "junior" under the premise that the senior created the environment for the junior's success. That is not a tradition Wikipedia should subscribe to, so I'm still gathering my thoughts. In today's vernacular, MacArthur would be "COCOM", Kinkaid, would be "OPCON", and Oldendorf would be "TACON". JMOprof (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
"That is not a tradition Wikipedia should subscribe to". That I don't agree with. If we don't use the standard in play at the time, either we impose an ahistorical modern one, or we make up one. Neither is a good idea IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Fletcher once said that he couldn't say who won the Battle of Midway, but he knows who would have been blamed if they'd lost. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. Nimitz, who'd probably have said, "If anybody's taking the fall, it's me. I sent them." TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Trek - actually we do ascribe to such a policy. Otherwise, the Oldendorf article doesn't exist; it's subsumed into Kinkaid's; but Kinkaid's doesn't exist, because it's subsumed into MacArthur's as we roll uphill. And since I don't know what the US Army tradition is, that's where we stop. I'm being facetious to make the point that we authors get to assign credit and blame as our research leads us.
 
My quibble with Hawkeye7's (thank you, Hawkeye7, for following along) exemplary article is that he is over-generous in giving credit to Kinkaid for Surigao Strait. It was an easy call for Kinkaid to put Oldendorf there. What other choice was there? My copy of Morison is the new reprint, so pagination may be different, but here is his summation of the PT performance, page 209:

It was the same story right up the Strait. Each succeeding motor torpedo section along the enemy's course observed gun flashes of the previous fight; made contact itself; attempted to get off its report (and sometimes did); went in for attack; fired torpedoes which missed; became brightly illuminated by enemy searchlights; came under brisk but inaccurate gunfire, and retired under a smoke screen.
 
Nishimura was well pleased with the way his ships had dealt with these nuisances.

Hard work by junior officers, but the stuff of comment for a vice admiral? A page earlier, Morison, discussing the first PT contact report, says "It confirmed the wisdom of [Oldendorf's] dispostions, and required no change in his battle plan." So the question becomes were they Oldendorf's dispositions, or Kinkaid's? In the April, 1959 issue of the USNI Proceedings Oldendorf commented on Morison's discussion of Surigao Strait (reproduced in the Dec 1958 issue). Here are his comments, from pages 104-105.

...Admiral Kinkaid's order to prepare for night action came as no surprise. ...It was obvious that the objective of the Japanese Forces was the destruction of our transports and that my mission was to protect them at all costs. In order to accomplish my mission, the force under my command must be interposed to between the enemy and the transports. I realized that I must not lose sight of my mission no matter how much I might be tempted to engage in a gunnery duel with him.
 
I selected the position of the battle line off Hingatungan Point because it gave me the maximum sea room available and restricted the enemy's movements. This position also permitted me to cover the eastern entrance to the Gulf should the Central Force under Admiral Kurita arrive ahead of the Southern Force. I selected the battle plan from the General Tactical Instructions and modified it to meet the conditions existing, i.e., lack of sea room to maneuver and possible enemy action. ...I thought that quite possibly he planned to slip some of his light forces into the Gulf by passing them to the eastward of Hibuson Island after the battle line was engaged. For that reason I stationed the preponderance of my light forces on the left flank. One duty which was never delegated to my staff was the drafting of battle plans. ...Admiral Kinkaid informed me that he had sent all of the Seventh Fleet Motor Torpedo Squadrons, under Commander S. S. Bowling, down the strait. They were to remain south of a line latitude 10 degrees 10 minutes, to report enemy progress, and to attack if opportunity presented.

It's clear that Oldendorf planned the battle. It was also clear to ADM King (see above) who said "The enemy was first met by our PT boats, then in succession by three coordinated destroyer torpedo attacks, and finally by devastating gunfire from our cruisers and battleships which had been disposed across the northern end of the strait by the officer in tactical command, Rear Adm. (now Vice Admiral) J. B. Oldendorf." Note that he didn't say "by forces under the command of VADM Kinkaid." (Of historical interest, Oldendorf's commentary goes on to discuss the contingency plans if Kurita has persevered.) The historical consensus is that the praise goes to Oldendorf. I'm just trying to keep it that way. ☺ JMOprof (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume the point of this discussion by JMOprof is to change the wording slightly to highlight the importance of Oldendorf then I am in favor. I would like to see some proposed text changes so that I can gauge their weight. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to change one part of one paragraph. As it reads today:

In the Battle of the Surigao Strait that night, Kinkaid engaged the Japanese with his PT boats, destroyers, cruisers and battleships, and was able to "cross the T" of the enemy fleet. It was the last occasion in history in which battleships fought each other. The Japanese lost two battleships, Yamashiro and Fusō, and three destroyers; Kinkaid′s force did not lose a single vessel.

to this:

In the Battle of the Surigao Strait that night, Kinkaid engaged the Japanese with his PT boats and Oldendorf's destroyers, cruisers and battleships. Oldendorf was able to "cross the T" of the enemy fleet. It was the last occasion in history where battleships fought each other. Of Nishimura's two battleships and five lesser ships, only the destroyer Shigure survived;[citation needed] Kinkaid′s PT force lost only PT-493, with 3 killed and 20 wounded.[citation needed] In Oldendorf's task force, only the destroyer Albert W. Grant was hit, mostly by friendly fire.[citation needed] Total Allied casualties were 39 men killed and 114 wounded.[citation needed]

From my Leyte the first cn is page 239. The reference of the original text conflicts with the text on pages 210-211 of my reprint of Morison, where the loss of PT-493 is mentioned. Note that all of Shima's forces survived. The third cn is my page 230. The last cn is my page 240. JMOprof (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. Changed to the suggested text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hawkeye - thank you. Should I infer that you found the 1986 pagination to jibe with the 1958 pagination? That would be serendipity. I can get a '58 copy from the library to adjust if you found it not so. We don't want to have two editions in play. ☺ JMOprof (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have an early edition. The pagination has not changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Good to know. Final thanks to all. ...best JMOprof (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013[edit]

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) 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013[edit]

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) 12:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013[edit]

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) 08:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Help in maintaining NPOV on historical Pacific War aviator[edit]

Hi JMOprof. Because you listed "The Japanese Empire" as an area of interest on the WikiProject Military history page (submarines), I thought you might be able to lend some help.

I'm looking for some third parties to review a problem editor who (in my opinion) continues to violate the NPOV policy of Wikipedia on the page of a Pacific War aviator, Mitsuo Fuchida. After exhausting myself trying to maintain viable content in the "Controversy" section, I'm asking for a page ban for this user. If you have time and motivation, I'd really appreciate your consideration to review this issue. The Noticeboard Request is to be found here: [2] I hate to take anyone's time, but this problem is why many won't trust Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration. P.S. I'm 5/8 Norwegian, and have been published in the U.S. Naval War College Review, right around the corner from you.--TMartinBennett (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Martin—I was about to start by saying this has been covered in the Review and that I'd go get back copies. Then I saw again the signature of the most recent letter, and I decided, quite brilliantly, that you already know that. ☺ Binksternet and I conversed on Surigao Strait (see above) when I had the temerity to edit Hawkeye7's Kincaid article. I will review the talk page and the matter closely. Your problem, of course, is the windmill at which you tilt. I'm not sure I bring the requisite scholarship, but I'll see what's what. JMOprof (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Fuchida was a flawed man, but the "Controversy" section is not balanced. I added a reference to the four exchanges in the NWCR, but Binksternet quickly deleted them even though they are the most scholarly and vetted content on the accusations against Fuchida to date. Here is my deleted post with links to the four articles - essentially two articles and two rebuttals.--TMartinBennett (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
JMOprof, Binksternet has now rallied a friend to repeat his POV on the Noticeboard where I asked for help. This other editor clearly has no clue what's going on. I pointed out that Binksternet is now deleting content from the Fuchida Talk page as well in violation of the guidelines. If there is no consequence, why is there a rule? When I went through the list of historians on Wikiproject Military History, I found numerous editors who simply said they've given up trying to keep accuracy on content in Wikipedia. I'm not seeking to have no controversy section on Fuchida, just both sides. Last fall I was in the same position and could find no editors to help. In despertation I asked for a page block, but that was only temporary. Now the page is being camped on by Binksternet, which I guess he considers his own private property. It has become apparent to me that, for controversial sections, the one who yells the longest and loudest wins. I have a job and work to do and no time for that. What do you suggest to restore balance to the page? Binksternet will never stop reverting the page to his own POV. Ever.--TMartinBennett (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
"Rallied a friend"? I have asked nobody to comment on the discussion you started at WP:ANI. Whoever you see commenting there does so on their own initiative, as far as I know. It is revealing to see that you think I have conspired against you rather than realizing that independent thinkers have come to the same conclusion as I have. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree that the article can use a change in tone. Here is what I propose:

Published works[edit]

Fuchida was the author of three books, one on the Battle of Midway, one a memoir, and one on his conversion to Christianity.

  • Midway: The Battle that Doomed Japan, the Japanese Navy's story was coauthored with Masatake Okumiya. In a section entitled "Five Fateful Minutes", Fuchida (as translated) writes "Five minutes! Who would have believed that the tide of battle would shift in that brief interval of time? ...We had been caught flatfooted in the most vulnerable condition possible—decks loaded with planes armed and fueled for attack."[1] Later scholarship (Parshall et. al.) dispute Fuchida's description.
  • For That One Day: The Memoirs of Mitsuo Fuchida, the Commander of the Attack on Pearl Harbor was his memoir. In it, Fuchida makes a claim that has not been corroborated by others: "In my role as Staff of General Navy Headquarters, I was assigned miscellaneous tasks to help the Japanese side's preparations. Since I was not an official attaché, I was watching the signing ceremony from the upper deck along with the crews of the Missouri."[2]
  • From Pearl Harbor to Calvary, originally published as From Pearl Harbor to Golgotha, is the story of Fuchida's Christian conversion.

Historical controversy[edit]

Fuchida was an important figure in the early portion of the Pacific War, and his written accounts, translated into English and published in America, were highly influential. As more Japanese source works were translated to English, the veracity of Fuchida's statement, quoted in At Dawn We Slept, of having demanded a third-wave Attack on Pearl Harbor's fuel tanks, and his later account of the timing of the American counter-attack in the Battle of Midway have been disputed by historians Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully.[3] However, in Fuchida's memoir, Fuchida does not claim demanding a third wave. Fuchida, rather, says "I was upset [about no re-attack] and thought, "What stupidity!" But the decision belonged to the Commander. It would not do any good if I complained."[4] Whether the discrepant cause is Fuchida's or author Gordon Prange's can not be determined. As well, Tully and Parshall have dismissed Fuchida's uncorroborated attendance on the battleship USS Missouri during the Japanese surrender ceremony in 1945 as beyond credulity.[5]

JMOprof (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this suggested text is good. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The change was made. Wikilinks inside quotes and titles are bad? Been doing it too much to correct except as I find 'em. ☹ JMOprof (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for implementing the text changes at the Fuchida bio. Regarding wikilinks, the guide at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking says "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." Somewhere else I was led to understand this practice extends to single words or terms within book titles, song titles, etc, unless the wikilink is the entire title, and leads to an article on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Four Naval War College Review Exchanges Between Parshall and Bennett Regarding Fuchida[edit]

1. “Reflecting on Fuchida, or ‘A Tale of Three Whoppers,’” Jonathan Parshall, 2010, Spring, Naval War College Review, Vol. 63, No.2, pp. 127-138. https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/612aa0c4-47a1-4107-afbb-17fa992adf59/Reflecting-on-Fuchida,-or--A-Tale-of-Three-Whopper.aspx

2. “Parshall’s ‘Whoppers’ Examined,” Martin Bennett, 2013, Winter, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 110-125. https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/292914a3-bbf7-4418-bc52-2b482f6466db/Book-Reviews.aspx

3. “In My View” section, “Fuchida’s Whoppers,” Jonathan Parshall, 2013, Spring, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No.2, pp. 136-138. https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/04286a6c-c1a5-46d1-b82d-56a59cefe6d2/Download-the-entire-issue-in-pdf-for-your-e-reader.aspx

4. “In My View” section, “Fireside Chats and Chasing Rabbits,” Martin Bennett, 2013, Summer, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No.3, pp. 155-157. https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/87757f16-a19f-45d2-a606-057a6999d699/Download-the-entire-issue-in-pdf-for-your-e-reader.aspx

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013[edit]

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) 15:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bud Day[edit]

Hi. I moved the MOH medal in Bud Day's Infobox down to the citation, where it makes a better presentation with the flow of the article (I think). While the MOH is certainly a high achievement, the totality of his service far outweighs it. I looked at a random selection of other MOH recipients and didn't see the medal in any of their Infoboxes, nor do I ever see any other kind of medal there. I don't think there's much precedent to put it above the subject's picture, or, for that matter, having more than one image. The tendency among many editors has been towards removing/downsizing imagery in Infoboxes. I see people removing ribbons (when I put them there because there are just a few and they don't justify their own section in the article), unit insignia, even the Army flag. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alan - Looks to be a naval custom amongst the naval editors. Here are some samples.
I would argue that the MOH is what represents the totality of his service and his country's opinion of it. Note that Day was not further promoted. The MOH image was there before my first edit, but side-by-side. I moved them over/under to allow for a larger image of Day. Day is my first USAF MOH edit. There are US Army examples as well. Two images are allowed per the template, but I'm not going to put it there twice ☺ . JMOprof (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I just think it looks out of place and takes up too much room. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to remove it, based on past experienceFace-smile.svg. I did notice, BTW, the discrepancy between the ribbon rack in the pics and our list. On my list to audit when I get a chance. The other medal, on close inspection, seems to be a Medal of Valor from the Governor of Iowa. Still looking for a confirming image or news story. His simple last name makes it tough. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Alan - I've added all I can to Day's article in good conscience, which was not much ☺ Doesn't help that the AF MOH is the largest of the three, I suppose. Looking at the Google news headlines, Day is remembered mostly, it seems, as McCain's cellmate above all else. That's a shame. I'll hunt up a medal list if I can. JMOprof (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013[edit]

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) 23:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 2007[edit]

Thanks for your addition. Do you have a reference? Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I do ☺ here and here with video here and here. If you read the MS Costa Concordia press today, the Repubblica is the parbuckled ship recovered in Antwerp in 2007. Took me a good while to find it. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Please add the PDF as a reference. Either of the Youtube videos will do for the parbuckling assuming they pass WP:YOUTUBE - i.e. are not copyright violations. See WP:CITE if you need further help with citations. Mjroots (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 13:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks you Face-smile.svg). Improving Wikipedia by adding details is great, but you must add references! Mjroots (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013[edit]

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) 23:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013[edit]

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) 22:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013[edit]

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) 05:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013[edit]

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) 23:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014[edit]

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) 13:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014[edit]

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) 23:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

AKS test[edit]

I added a section to the talk page about the AKS primality page because you added the numberphile video again. If you have read the AKS paper, or even the Wikipedia page, it should be clear that what they describe is not AKS. What they describe is first part of the "Concepts" section of the Wikipedia page. This has been known for over 100 years (it's in Reid's 1910 book). They don't get to the second part, which is actually AKS. The video is wrong and misleading, and should not be on Wikipedia page. DAJ NT (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answered on the talk page. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 16:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[edit]

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) 11:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[edit]

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) 14:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[edit]

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) 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[edit]

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) 14:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Fuchida, Mitsuo; Masatake Okumiya (1955). Clark K. Kawakami, ed. Midway: The Battle that Doomed Japan, the Japanese Navy's story (hard cover) (1976 ed.). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. pp. 177–8. ISBN 0-87021-372-5. 
  2. ^ Fuchida, Mitsuo (2011). For That One Day: The Memoirs of Mitsuo Fuchida, the Commander of the Attack on Pearl Harbor (ebook). eXperience, inc. p. 204. ISBN 978-0984674503. 
  3. ^ Parshall and Tully 2005, pp. 437–442.
  4. ^ Fuchida, Mitsuo (2011). For That One Day: The Memoirs of Mitsuo Fuchida, the Commander of the Attack on Pearl Harbor (ebook). eXperience, inc. p. 104. ISBN 978-0984674503. 
  5. ^ Parshall, Jonathan. "Reflecting on Fuchida, or A Tale of Three Whoppers." Naval War College Review, Spring 2010, pp. 127–138.