Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members

CfD Category:Former_military_equipment_of_the_Philippines[edit]


All the best: Rich Farmbrough01:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Help with a new article about Stolen valor[edit]

Hello. I was hoping to get some assistance with polishing an article I am writing, currently in my sandbox here: Military imposter. It is a hot topic over the past decade, even involving two federal laws in the US, and I was very surprised to find no articles about it on wikipedia. I chose to use the more generic title "military imposter" because "stolen valor" appears to be American slang. I attempted to make the article as applicable to the rest of the world as possible, but unfortunately all my sources are in the US. I request help for the following reasons:

  • I have never been a member of any military. I have friends from each of the five branches in the US military, hence my interest, but that is WP:OR and more importantly, hearsay. This is a matter of great concern to real veterans, so don't want to screw it up.
  • I am far from a professional writer. I make mistakes and don't always notice them when I proofread.
  • I was hoping for additional sources and/or views from other countries besides the US. This is an issue that I would think affects any nation.

Thanks! Legitimus (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're interested in adding information relating to other countries, masquerading as a military soldier or officer in China (e.g. civilians wearing People's Liberation Army uniforms) is a punishable offence, as it is illegal for a civilian to wrongfully pose as a member of the PLA. There's also something else that's slightly related, a bigger and more common problem in China involves civilians using fake military car license plates illegally (these cars get special privileges, e.g. police cannot give them parking tickets), however this probably has less to do with stolen valor, and more with gaining false benefits for personal gain. Here and here are two relevant articles. --benlisquareTCE 16:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Legitimus: You're off to a good start. I'm confused, though: You list three books as references. That seems sufficient to fill the article with in-line citations about this type of fraud. Globalizing this issue can be done later. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
In the UK, it used to be illegal to impersonate a Chelsea pensioner - it carried the death penalty for many years I think... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
G'day, this is an issue in Australia also. Here are a couple of newspaper articles that might be of interest: [1] and [2]. There is also a website run by some people to investigate alleged imposters: [3] I recommend caution though not to breach BLP guidelines. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, those should help. Regarding book references, I don't actually own them, I'm just working from google books preview text and citations from other sites. Once I get that sorted I'll start working in-line citations. Also thanks for reminding me about BLP, that could be an issue with a few "notables" unless they were tried in a court and convicted of imposter-related crimes. Interesting thing to note, Walter K. Carlson and Terry J. Powell appear to be completely non-notable people apart from their crimes. I found them purely by accident trying to find articles about imposters, and they probably should be deleted. Who ever created them might have been trying to use Wikipedia as a "stolen valor shaming site" which is definitely against BLP.Legitimus (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Pritzker Military Museum & Library has book references on Stolen Valor. If you go to your home library and request via interlibrary loan, PMML staff will send the items or make photocopies of sections. If you just need photocopies or a reference check, you can leave a talk message on my talk page.TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • There was an episode of a crime series about stolen valor in the Russian military, it came out about 5 years ago on the Russian Channel 2.Maybe it is somewhere out there on the net.--Catlemur (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Potential project for you guys?[edit]

Hi, guys. I'm contacting you to see if your group has interest in taking lead on a potential project to collaborate with the History Channel on information related to the Texas Revolution. In a nutshell, they are going to be running a program called "Texas Rising", which focuses on the battles and events of the Texas Revolution after the Alamo. Horizon Media has contacted us to see if there would be any possibility of the article on Texas Revolution or the one on Santa Anna reaching featured status for TFA on the day the program launches, May 25, 2015 (Memorial Day). They are aware that we are not an advertising platform, but hope to be able to point viewers to the main page article for further information. There is a possibility, if there is interest, that they may be able to get some assistance in developing either article from History Channel historians.

They have been apprised that article development is managed by volunteers, as is the assessment of quality and the coordination of TFAs, and they are very interested in working with a volunteer group who might be interested in exploring this possibility. You guys seemed to me like a natural fit. Is there any interest in taking part in this? Any questions or concerns I should pass along first? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mdennis (WMF): The only Milhist Texas writer that I know of is Karanacs, who is interested in that exact time period but hasn't been active for some time. Perhaps you could try emailing her? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
G'day, I believe that Maile66 is currently working on something related to this: the Runaway Scrape, an article which is currently being reviewed at Milhist A-class review. Not sure if they would be interested or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
After The World Wars (miniseries), why would anyone interested in history want to work with the History Channel?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm involved in Texas history. However, I would at least try to get the word out to Karanacs and Kuru who contributed to Texas FAs. Also, WhisperToMe might be interested. And, yes, by the way, the Runaway Scrape is the subject matter. It is a brief of what happened after the Alamo until Santa Anna's surrender.— Maile (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile, for pinging me on this. I have long wanted to get Texas Revolution up to snuff, but I had planned to write about each of the battles first... and then burnt out halfway through. I've barely begun research into the second half of the war - although it looks like Maile has! This is a big undertaking - it would need to be done and nominated for FA by mid-April to have a prayer of passing before Memorial Day. In that time frame, it would take a team of at least 3, I think - 1-2 to finish the research (Goliad campaign, battle of San Jac, aftermath/significance), 1 to pull together the existing research/summarize the FAs already written, 1 to write up the new research. Plus drop-ins from a copyeditor (perhaps Modernist?) and someone who knows something about images. I don't have the amount of time that I used to have to devote, but if we could get a few other volunteers to commit, I'm in for a collaboration. At this point, I'd probably be better suited to doing research and posting my notes and letting someone else write. Then I could help with the FA prep, since I used to do a lot of that. Karanacs (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I would also be interested in doing Sam Houston - I have 3 biographies of him at home just waiting for me to read them. Karanacs (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
And thank you for answering. I'm willing, but I realize my limitations. For one thing, I don't have access to nearly enough research material for that part of it. I'm willing to pitch in and do what I can, but I also believe there are writers here at MHProjject who far surpass me on writing skills. The timing of this is ironic. I just happened to run across Runaway Scrape in October, not having seen it before, and decided to make it more understandable. Hope this idea gets volunteers. — Maile (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, guys! In January I may be able to get some archival material from institutions in southeast Texas. Are there particular libraries you have in mind? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be thrilled to help with such a project, but that is a real big project. In essence, you'd need to cover the entire Runaway Scrape - the article and it's relevant sub articles. Additional consideration could also be given to the articles Six flags over Texas and History of Texas, since those two articles are also part of the history of Texas, and would be of interest to people checking the series out. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
PS: Maggie Dennis (WMF), thanks for bringing this up here. I can't vouch for the rest of the editors here, but this new just made my day (or more accurately, my night, since I don't think I've seen the sun in a week :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this here, Maggie -- with Karanacs (welcome back!), WhisperToMe, and TomStar81 expressing interest, it sounds like there might already be the nucleus of a project team. Karan's suggestions for division of labour (sorry, labor...!) make sense to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mdennis (WMF):In order to determine where exactly we should concentrate our efforts here can we get some idea of when exactly the series wraps up? The period they are covering could have one of two possible end points: the aftermath of the Battle of San Jacinto, or the Texas annexation of 1845-1846. If its the former, then my original assessment that we would need to work on the Runaway Scrape, but if they are planning on going a little further than that then we would need to expand our horizons a little to adequately cover the series. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, Runaway Scrape needs to have the A-Class review wrapped up. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I googled the History Channel production. It claims to be "the story of how the Texas Rangers were created" (which has pretty much zero to do with the Texas Revolution, so keep reminding yourself this is a fictionalized account and people deserve a great article to point out reality). The list of characters is mostly people who played big parts in the Battle of San Jacinto. It may go as far as Lamar's presidency (he formalized the division), but I doubt much further than that. Since most people will google Texas Revolution instead of Runaway Scrape, I don't think we need to focus on the latter article. Karanacs (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Except that it was nominated for A-class review before this other ever came up. I'm just saying I would like that review to progress as normal, whether or not any additional editing happens to it. It was termed "horrible article" on the talk page, and nobody could make sense of it before I completely rewrote it. My purpose with the A-class review was/is to put those talk page doubts to rest. — Maile (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I've started brainstorming at Talk:Texas Revolution. Karanacs (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm answering a ping above and on my page. I'd love to help in any way. Anything that keeps Karanacs as an active editor; very excited to see you back. Will check in on the TR talk page and volunteer as needed. Kuru (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, guys. I'm sorry for the delay in my response. I've got an inquiry out to them, as I'd like to put them in touch with one of you directly, but they are not speedy correspondents. :/ I will update with more information and hopefully make a direct connection as soon as I can! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Mdennis (WMF), to the surprise of no one, Karanacs has taken the old Texas bull by its long horns and is gradually putting in place a structure the rest of us can work from. Please see Talk:Texas Revolution. She can answer for herself, but I would suggest putting her out there as the main contact for this project. She's got the experience, know-how and initiative to see this through. — Maile (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, — Maile . :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source for casualties during First Battle of Quảng Trị[edit]

Gday. Does anyone have a reliable source for both North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese casualties during the First Battle of Quảng Trị in March - May 1972? Currently the figures are uncited, while an IP has recently been making some changes that I am unsure are accurate (I have asked for discussion but they just continue to make the same change). If anyone has a good source that would probably settle the matter. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Tucker "The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War", pp. 952 onwards seems like it could be a useful source (only preview available on Google books though which is missing the next few pages unfortunately) [4]. Does anyone have access to this source? Anotherclown (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference check - anyone have "South Vietnam on Trial" by Fulghum and Maitland?[edit]

Hello. I am dubious of this edit [5] at Easter Offensive, which adds "Limited North Vietnamese strategic victory" to the result summary and gives the ref "Fulghum and Maitland, p. 183", however the article already calls it a "North Vietnamese tactical defeat" with the same reference. Does anyone have this source? And if so could you pls check that the source actually supports the information it is being used to reference (i.e. both NVA tactical defeat and strategic victory) or one or the other? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I read the article yesterday for reasons of nostalgia and thought that

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

might be called for in the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Gday Keith. Thanks for taking the time to read my post and reply. Yes I agree that could be a solution in cases where there are multiple reliable sources which state opposite outcomes (although the key here is "reliable"). My question though is more specific. As I no longer assume the user that added this material to the article in question to be acting in good faith I'm hoping someone can fact check the source and confirm or deny whether it supports their edit. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI for anyone following this I have now removed this information per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN. That said I'm than happy for an editor to restore it if they are able to confirm that it is supported by the reference provided. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Medium machine guns and the like[edit]

Is the Maxim machine gun a medium or a heavy? Is it just a question of role, or size of caliber, or a blurring of both? And if it's a heavy, does that imply the Vickers is a heavy too.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Heavy machine gun article says that the classification was made by weight and calibre, but lacks citations to support this. My impression has always been that this is/was a US concept, and the distinction was made by calibre - in World War II, the 0.5 inch M2 Browning was considered a HMG while the also-large (though not as large) M1919 Browning machine gun was a MMG. Nick-D (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Distinction of either heavy, medium, or even light machine guns really varies by nation and time period the weapon was used. Being one of the first machine guns and used by nearly every army along with having calibers as large as 37mm the maxim could be seen as simultaneously a medium and heavy machine gun. --Molestash (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
~I suspected it wouldn't be simple. I've been editing on list of machine guns which is divided into types, and the Maxim and the Russian derivative (PM1910) differed from the Vickers and MG/08. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Same list different name?[edit]

I am not 100% but are List of Allied vessels involved in Operation Neptune and List of Allied warships in the Normandy landings the same thing? --Molestash (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Widespread sockpuppet issue on Vietnam War and Russian Front (World War Two) articles[edit]

Hello all. Apologies for the repeated posts here recently but I think this issue is something the wider MILHIST community at least needs to be aware of. This issue has been ongoing for a while but only came to my attention in the last day or so, and while there have been a few editors that have been tracking this and working through it for us (for which I thank them), I think the only way this will be resolved is with more eyes on these articles. A banned editor has been using a wide range of IPs as sockpuppets to edit a range of Vietnam War and Russian Front related articles for some time now. As socks are discovered and blocked new ones appear, while some seem to have gone undetected for months, resulting in fairly widespread disruption. So far, since March 2014, there have been 8 separate sockpuppet investigations - pls see the details at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN.

Some of the articles where these socks have edited include (but there are doubtless others): Battle of Suoi Bong Trang, Battle of Coral–Balmoral, First Battle of Quảng Trị, Second Battle of Quảng Trị, Operation Junction City, Operation Kingfisher, Operation Swift, Operation Buffalo (1967), Operation Hastings, Operation Prairie, Battle of Hill 881, Operation Medina, Operation Union, Operation Union II, Operation Lam Son 719, Operation Starlite, Battle of Trà Bình, Battle of Prek Klok I, Battle of Prek Klok II, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, Battle of Khe Sanh, Operation Masher, Operation Cedar Falls, Operation Attleboro, Battle of Long Tan, Battle of Dak To, Battle of Huế, Massacre at Huế, Tet Offensive, Body count, Operation Linebacker I, Operation Linebacker II, Battle of Hòa Bình, Battle of Loc Ninh, Easter Offensive, Operation Rolling Thunder, Battle of Xa Cam My, Operation Delaware, Vietnam War casualties, Battle of Đồng Hới, List of equipment of the Vietnam People's Ground Forces, Equipment losses in World War II, IS tank family, Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Kursk, Battle of Rostov (1941), Lvov–Sandomierz Offensive, Western Allied invasion of Germany, Second Battle of Kharkov, Ostrogozhsk–Rossosh Offensive, Case Blue, Battle of Smolensk (1941), Battle of Kiev (1941), Battle of Berlin, Battle of the Korsun–Cherkassy Pocket, Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive, Operation Uranus, Battle of Prokhorovka, RPG-7, and 7.62×51mm NATO.

The IPs involved all geolocate to Hanoi and (so far) include the following ranges: 101.XX, 27.XX, 113.XX, 1.55.XX, 42.XX, 58.XX, 117.XX, 118.XX and 183.XX. Of course not all IPs in these ranges are sockpuppets, so care needs to be taken here not to prevent good faith editing. Whilst the latest issue now seems to be resolved I imagine this is only temporary, so if other editors could pls watch these articles to ensure any disruption is detected that would be appreciated. The whole episode has left me fairly concerned about the amount of disruption that has likely occurred that remains undiscovered, so if other editors are willing to review other articles in these topic areas to check they are free of disruption that would also be beneficial. Thanks again for any assistance anyone is willing to volunteer. Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Predictably this issue has recommenced today, this time at Battle of Hòa Bình. I have requested a re-block here and semi-protection here, although no doubt they will just change to yet another account and move on to a different article. Anotherclown (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:post-Cold War conflicts in the Americas and September 11 attacks[edit]

I am unclear on whether September 11 attacks qualifies as a conflict in terms of military or political battles. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Barney McCall[edit]

Hello from the cricket project! This guy was a notable cricketer and Welsh rugby international. But he also had a military career of note and was an MC recipient in WWII. I'm wondering if anybody would be able to complete the currently empty military career section on the article? Thanks, PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have had a quick look through the London Gazette archive and have added a few paragraphs on his pre-war and post-war service. With a bit of digging I should be able to find a bit on his WWII service too (hopefully his MC award and promotion to captain at least). Regards - Dumelow (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have added a little more and tracked down his medal recommendation in the National Archives. If you are willing to pay £3.30 you can download this file which should provide detail about the circumstances of the award, from the limited preview it looks to make interesting reading (if you are near Kew or know somebody who is, you can view the record for free) - Dumelow (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
He is in a group photograph at the RASC museum in Camberley, Surrey also - Dumelow (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dumelow, I believe a member of our project might be subscribed to something relating to the National Archives. Thanks for your work, much appreciated :-) PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the military historian of the year for 2014 now open![edit]

Military historian Goldenwiki 2.png of the year 2014

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 below. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)

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 21 December 2014.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Parsecboy: The (mainly German) ship-building continues apace, with a huge number of GAs this year. Incredible workrate. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sturmvogel 66: A prolific ship-maker who has contributed hugely to Milhist GAN throughput via reviewing as well (has reviewed 493! GANs). Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Euryalus (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3.   Cliftonian (talk)  14:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Lots of good reviewing going on during the year. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Molestash (talk)
  6. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  8. Reviews both for substance and for writing quality. Rammer (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  9. Catlemur (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  10. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  11. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Tomobe03: Great work this year, significant contribution to Croatia War of Independence articles/lists (1 × FL, 22 × GA) and lots of GAN reviews. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Anotherclown: massive contribution as a reviewer at GAN and ACR this year, as well as content creation work at B-class and GAN. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Zawed (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ian Rose: another fantastic year for Ian in terms of content creation, co-ord duties and FAC work. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Zawed (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Arius1998 (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Peacemaker67: a strong year of content creation in a contentious field and significant contributions to the project through work as a co-ord. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. One of our strongest contributors in all facets of the project over the past year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2.   Cliftonian (talk)  14:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Kierzek (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Catlemur (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  8. Arius1998 (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  9. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hawkeye7: made a significant contribution to the project's co-ordination through creation of MilhistBot. Has also continued to produce top quality articles throughout the year. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. I think I vote for Hawkeye every year but the quality and quantity of his work just doesn't slacken, and he's topped all that off this year with the most useful bots for both ACR and FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Euryalus (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  4.   Cliftonian (talk)  14:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. The bots were a stand-out contribution this year. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  8. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  9. Catlemur (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  10. Arius1998 (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. A series of great articles on subjects many readers find fascinating, but few editors feel up to tackling. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Kierzek (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • BoringHistoryGuy Tireless often behind-the-scenes worker, whose name is often the answer when I ask my self, "Who did all this?" Carptrash (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Must help a person named "Boring"! Rammer (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Diannaa Copy editor extraordinaire, a tireless work ethic, significant contributions at improving articles, adding cites, removing OR and vandalism edits; great collaborator and reviewer. / Extremely kind person, always willing to help, awesome collaborator, and highly appreciated copy editor. Kierzek (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC) and Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Thanks for all your hard work, especially adding cites. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. As co-nom. I gladly add my vote for the reasons I state above. Kierzek (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • P-123 A tireless and outgoing copy editor whose non-stop editings give other editors energy and motivation for editing. He is skilful at addressing the disputes and leading them toward consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Auntieruth55 - Dedicated hard working editor whose numerous streamlined contributions tend to fly below the radar, but one whom the project definitely relies on to help with the work. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Agree with everything Tom said. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Dank: has had a hand in most A-class and FA-class articles the project has produced this year through involvement in reviewing and copy editing. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Has copyedited every A class abd FAC article I've submitted, which is much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Buistr (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hchc2009: sterling work on medieval-themed milhist articles in 2014. Zawed (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Another highly productive editor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Suffers from being at the bottom of the ballot. Rammer (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
     :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. As nominator. Zawed (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the military history newcomer of the year for 2014 now open![edit]

Military history newcomer Goldenwiki 2.png of the year 2014

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 below. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)

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 21 December 2014.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 00:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


  1. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Anotherclown (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Lineagegeek (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Cinderella157: active since June 2014, mainly working on a re-draft of the Battle of Buna–Gona article with a view to eventually going live with it. A new editor who is putting in a lot of work to get things right and who will be a great asset to the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. --Molestash (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. As nominator. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Anotherclown (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Saxum: made considerable contributions in the first year of project participation adding half a dozen GAs. In all honesty they're active in Milhist since late November 2013 - so I'm not quite sure if they apply to the "newcomer" category, but I figured this year's round of nominations were in practice the first where they could be nominated. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Jonas Vinther: joined us in late December 2013. Since then he worked on a number of articles and supported the project by reviewing many articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Anotherclown (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • P-123 A tireless and outgoing copy editor whose non-stop editings give other editors energy and motivation for editing. He is skilful at addressing the disputes and leading them toward consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Yes, Wikipedia needs nice editors who work diplomatically with people. Rammer (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pendright: a US Navy veteran of World War II who officially joined our project just over a year ago and has shown great dedication since then, taking a brace of articles through GA, A, and finally FA-class reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. RobDuch (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  6.   Cliftonian (talk)  14:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  8. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  9. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  10. Jehorn (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  11. Excellent to have this military historian who has actually been there. Rammer (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  12. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  13. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Especially notable for demonstrated ability to recruit others. Rammer (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. TeriEmbrey TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

FAR notice[edit]

I have nominated Military career of Hugo Chávez for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

War outcome related article needs expert view[edit]

An RFC is here ,the article is about an outcome of a war would request comments from experts in this field Shrikanthv (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Return of assessing IP[edit]

An IP with a history of assessing articles for this project that project members found unsatisfactory has returned: [6], previous discussion here from April 2014. They were blocked back then as a sock of Wild Wolf. I have no idea whether the latest assessments are problematic, but they're doing a lot of articles so the project needs to be aware. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The user needs to at least provide an edit summary to justify the change to each article's assessment (rating). A note on this was added to the the IPer's talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, the IPer seems to be mainly copying in the B-class assessment fields, but not checking if each criteria is passed or not ('yes/no' is being left for each field). -Fnlayson (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it's more than one IP involved with the same history. No block log on this one, but they stopped doing the assessments 2 December 2013 and resumed 1 December 2014 and stopped 2 December 2014. The one noted above by Yngvadottir stopped the editing 26 August 2014 and resumed 6 November 2014, stopped 26 November and resumed 4 December. Looking at the times of the edits of both, there surely must be some kind of automation involved. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Be amazed at how fast one can copy paste. It looks like a previously banned editors work but it would need more than blanket assessing to get a permanent sock ban. --Molestash (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
This one, too. They edit exclusively Nov-Dec, this year and last. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, they're all located in Kansas, and that last one is the Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library.— Maile (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I will vote for[edit]

the first editor who can tell (here or my user page) the date of the uniform Kit Carson is wearing in the lede picture of that article. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Its probably a civil war uniform, likely from his time from the civil war since the insignia on his shoulder appears to be an eagle (rank of Colonel) as opposed to his brevet General rank attained after the war ended. As there is no mention of his Indian war service, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, after a little more digging I can narrow Carson's uniform down to no early than 1853/54, and no later than 1865/66. According to the article, in 53/54 Carson;s future unit (the department of NM) was formally created, since he held the rank of colonel in that unit his uniform could not have been issued any earlier than that to have been photographed with the eagle insignia. He was recommended for brevet general's rank in 65, so the uniform's insignia would have had a general's star past 65/66. Accordingly then, based on this empirical evidence, I can safely say with a high degree of certainty that this photograph in the lead was taken at some point during the civil war, or the immediately preceding Indian interventions; more probably the former than the latter since the civil war has a better collection of photographs related to commanding officers. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
One might also suggest that, comparing the photo with that from 1868, Carson is considerably younger in the former - hair fuller and dark, face less lined. Which would point earlier in the 1860s than later.Monstrelet (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Winter War[edit]

There is an ongoing neutrality dispute in Winter War article. See the discussion here. I have started discussion on NPOV noticeboard and I was advised to turn to you. Can you help to resolve the dispute? --Gwafton (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"Royal Army"[edit]

The usage of "Royal Army" is under discussion, see talk:Royal Army (disambiguation) -- (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Danny Boy[edit]

The Battle of Danny Boy has been in the news this week. Would anyone care to expand the article? -- PBS (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo, input requested[edit]

There is currently a discussion (after an Edit War) in this article concerning how to list the modern day location of this historic battle from the 1300s. Would project members please review the article and comment as to what the norms or standards are in this matter, Talk:Battle_of_Kosovo#LOCATION.3F.21.3F.21. I am trying to stay uninvolved and just facilitate consensus. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


[7] I've been in the habit of putting urls on theses held by Ethos and have just found that the link doesn't always go to the thesis indicated, particularly on articles where more than one thesis is in the References section. I've tinkered around and can only make the link specific by logging in, which seems unwise to disclose on a Wikipedia page. Does Wiki have a corporate membership or something to get round this?Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Tomitarō Horii and Draft:Battle of Buna-Gona Japanese strength and order of battle[edit]

hi, have been working on Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona and posted following to Talk:Tomitarō Horii

Hi, I am working on a rewrite of the Battle of Buna-Gona. All wiki reliable sources I can access Give Horii's rank as Maj Gen. I believe (from Wiki unreliable sources) that he was promoted posthumously. Was hoping to clear this up. Does anybody have a precise reference to address this 'apparent' discrepancy please? Thanks Cinderella157 (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thought this might get wider coverage here.

Regarding Draft:Battle of Buna-Gona Japanese strength and order of battle, I have only been able to find relevant images of the dead, wounded or captured. I think this is unfortunate. I was hoping for something more positive if anybody could help. Unfortunately, my revision for the battle Draft:Battle of Buna–Gona (just like the current page) is written from an Allied perspective. I see no way around this except to write an additional article from a Japanese perspective. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

From memory, I think that it was routine for World War II-era Japanese military personnel (or maybe just officers?) to be promoted posthumously. Regarding sources with material on Japanese perspectives, I think that the main works are Bullard's translation of the Japanese official history and Collie and Marutani's book The Path of Infinite Sorrow (best used carefully). Blood and Iron by Lex McAulay apparently also provides good detail on Japanese perspectives (I haven't read it), but might now be a bit dated. Please don't create articles with different perspectives: doing so would violate WP:NPOV, and be confusing to readers. If it comes to it, there are lots of sources you can draw on which explain the limited availability of Japanese perspectives and sources (in short, few of the Japanese personnel involved in the 1942-43 New Guinea battles survived the war, the records of their units were destroyed during the war, and translation problems mean that Japanese perspectives are greatly represented in English language accounts). Nick-D (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)