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


Look at my 43rd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment page. Please fix the problem. You'll know it when you see it. Sorry, it's my first real article.

2014 Olsberg mid-air collision[edit]

An issue is being discussed at talk:2014 Olsberg mid-air collision. Members of this Wikiproject are invited to voice their opinions.

30 SW and questionable editing[edit]

I have been monitoring the work of 30 SW (talk · contribs) for months now, and have been trying to fact-check his new articles. Oftentimes, he creates articles that are so overly-technical in their detail that they read like a technical manual. At the same time, both Tdrss and I have noticed that there are many articles with outright fabrications (Clear Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field being created under another name because they found one source of questionable reliability) or are questionably notable (Cheyenne Mountain Shooting Complex, for one). I am wondering if anyone else has had an issue here with them and to see if people want to proceed with some sort of mentoring program, as they are useful to the project, but they are starting to become a burden to all that we do here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I decided there were more productive things to do on Wikipedia than engage in an edit war. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I also have severe concerns regarding this editor. Open to suggestions as to the way forward. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Buckshot06: I have thought of bringing the user to AN/I, but I wanted to discuss the issue here before we went there. I have left them messages on their talk page before to no effect. Blocks probably won't occur unless they show complete incompetence, although we're also bordering on the line of that at this very moment, so I could see it happening in the near future. What would you advise, as I don't want to see them thrown off the project, but if they can't reform, that might be the best option. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have been advised in similar cases to consider WP:RfC/USER. Suggest you consider that page, then e-mail me. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: You also might be interested in commenting here, based on a comment that you left on their talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

See "Fairfax" below. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

American Civil War – Death Statistics – According to the Dyer Compendium[edit]


I have completed a small page (as noted above) of the death statistics in the Dyer Compendium (Volume 1) from the 1959 edition. I'm going to be moving the sandbox-type-page to a userpage of mine and what should it be named as? Remember I do have an "American Civil War Regiments" subpage already. Adamdaley (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The death percentages range from 1.75% to 28.84% for the individual states and 12.94% for overall. I guess no one is interested in a name for this on my userpage or an article for it. Adamdaley (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


30 SW (talk · contribs) recently rebuilt Fairfax Field (also up for rename [1] at WP:RMTR), by merging from Fairfax Airport and splitting to Air Force Plant NC, Fairfax Air Force Base, USAAF Modification Centers, "etc". I have no idea what "etc" means, that was the only information left at the page concerning the destination. The destinations that are mentioned could do with some cleanup as they are carrying redlinked categories. -- (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

2472d AF Reserve Flying Center is probably the "etc".GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The missing attributions on these splits is rather poor practice. I've only added attribution templates to the ones that are actually listed in that edit summary. Should I add one for 2472d? -- (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The citations for the existence of "Fairfax Air Force Base" are a Duke University change of address and two newspaper articles. In context, neither meets the criteria for renaming from "Fairfax Field". A search at Air Force History Index] shows the name "Fairfax Field" in use as late as 1954. Cornett, Lloyd H; Johnson, Mildred W (1980). A Handbook of Aerospace Defense Organization, 1946 - 1980. Peterson AFB, CO: Office of History, Aerospace Defense Center.  lists no units at a "Fairfax AFB" ( Central Air Defense Force and 19th Weather Squadron are shown as located at Kansas City) and the AFHRA web page shows the 442d Fighter Wing at "Fairfax Field" until 1950. In short, there was no such installation as Fairfax Air Force Base. --Lineagegeek (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, considering that they created Clear Springs Air Force Base out of nowhere due to a one-line reference in some obscure article, I guess I'll have no choice but to start an RFC/U to address this behavior. I ended up wasting a month filing an EFOIA as well to figure this out, which ended once they told me that they themselves had no proof that the field existed under that name (also, a cursory look at the field from the air shows a distinct lack of infrastructure that would characterize it as a base. Tdrss and I also have also discussed this user before with the Clear Springs issue, and we have come to the consensus that something should probably be done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Concur with Kevin Rutherford and Lineagegeek. The primary USAF sources at AFHRA do not list a Fairfax "Air Force Base" - this seems to be another case of overzealous reporters (in the secondary sources) wanting to make the location sound official by appending Air Force Base. This is a common historic error with either Air Fields, Air Bases (both within CONUS and overseas). Unless 30 SW (talk · contribs) can start identifying General Orders or Special Order numbers for researchers to verify, they should stop using secondary sources as gospel. TDRSS (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Could someone, for the edification of myself mostly, explain the difference between a location called "[name] Field" and "[Name] Air Force Base". I presume also that, though possibly ambiguous, one could refer to somewhere in general terms as "[Name] air force base" (with careful attention to lower case). GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "[name] Field" is the original name for military field or older name for a civil airport. "[Name] Air Force Base" with caps is the official USAF base name. At least that's the way it seems to me. Others correct where that's off. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
For the US air arm, prior to WW II most Air Corps fields were dedicated (named after a person) in the form (Person name) Field. With the vast expansion in WWII, most installations were named after locations in the form (Location name) Army Air Field or (Location name) Army Air Base, although there are exceptions, mostly in cases where a civilian field name was retained after the AAF took over. On 13 January 1948, bases within the Continental US that were under USAF control were renamed (Person or Location name) Air Force Base. This was done by Department of the Air Force General Order No. 2. Notice that Fairfax is not on page 2 of this document, where it should be expected. (This renaming did not occur in 1947 when the USAF became independent, as some articles imply)
See Scott's USAF Installations Page for much more discussion of this.--Lineagegeek (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A source of interest...[edit]

It amazes me that such resource is not locked up in a research library along with weeks of wait list...

Article/Topic: Kagnew Battalion, Military History of Ethiopia during the Korean War.

Jim101 (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Screw it, the entire series of books on South African, Ethiopia, Belgium, Thailand, Dutch, Philippians, Colombia, Turkey, Greece, France involvement in the Korean War is all available for download at [2]. Jim101 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This is excellent! The way the poplar media (yes I'm pointing at you History Channel!) treats the subject, one easily falls into the trap of thinking the Korean War was purely a "Yanks versus Commies" affair - much to the irritation of the other countries involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress[edit]

Many of you may have come across my edits in the eight years I've been operating here, mostly working on post-1945 military history in a variety of guises. I've tried to spend significant time on less covered subjects. Yet I'm considering throwing in the towel over this user, Middayexpress: he determinely resists fair coverage of Somalia-related war activities. I have followed all the suggestions and rules for addressing this, and at this moment, this RfC-U may be dying for lack of interest. Please, take a moment, examine the evidence, and have your say - otherwise in another little corner of WP, NPOV will wither. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Mexican Federalist War[edit]

I created a stubby article called battle of Morales (1813) because a couple of the subjects of biographies I am working on fought in the skirmish. This led me to realise that there was another battle with the same name fought in 1840. So following upon that I have created a campaign box:

template:Campaignbox Mexican Federalist War

and created stubs for all the battles in that war. I would appreciate it if someone could add the necessary talk page templates as I am not certain what they ought to contain. -- PBS (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. -- PBS (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A-Class review for June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina needs attention[edit]

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ford Island needs attention[edit]

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Ford Island; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

September-October 2014 backlog reduction drive[edit]

The Great Backlog Drive Banner 1.jpg

G'day Milhisters, just a reminder that the 1 September-15 October 2014 backlog reduction drive starts in one week! Sign up here! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC) (for the Milhist coordinators)

Category:Military history articles with no associated task force[edit]

G'day all, before the backlog drive starts, it would be good to get Category:Military history articles with no associated task force down to zero. That way it won't get out of control during the drive (it isn't one of the areas we work on). I've got it down to a manageable 40 or so over the weekend, so if anyone else feels like doing five minutes of gnoming, some help would be appreciated. It will help us all during the drive if you add the B-Class checklist when you add taskforces. If you can't see a taskforce that fits, you can put |no=yes, which means there is no relevant taskforce. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I did a few but still 30+ to go if someone else is looking to assist. Anotherclown (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Apparently cleared. Any other sections need tidying before drive? --Molestash (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
A growing gap in the "Periods" task forces is the absence of one covering the Post Cold War period - basically from the fall of the Wall/dissolution of the Warsaw Pact until the present. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
There are some other gaps as well (ie where do Austria, Switzerland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and a few others fit?). I take your point, there certainly is a gap in the "Periods" group of taskforces. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Remember that the task forces were created to allow a group of editors interested in the same topic to coordinate their work and they are not intended to cover all of milhist. Since no such group exists for post-Cold War issues, I see no need for another pointless task force. We can deal with that if people start talking about participating in such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Russians in the Donbass[edit]

In my first edit to War in Donbass, I've run into a disagreement over how to represent Russia in the Infobox. In brief, numerous parties, including Kiev, the U.S. State Department and NATO, allege that Russia has provided various levels of combat support, weaponry, or personnel to the insurgency in the Donbass. Russia denies this, but it seems appropriate, given the preponderance of sources, to list it as a belligerent under the heading [Various insurgent groups] "Supported by: Russia" Another editor quickly removed the heading "Supported by"; I find this bizarre, as the Russian Federation is obviously not a formal participant in the conflict, whatever its levels of clandestine support, so listing it as a full belligerent doesn't make sense. "Supported by" seems to be pretty universal in cases like this—the Jordanians in Syria, the Chinese in Vietnam, the Italians and Germans in Spain, all of whom provided vastly more combat and material forces than Russia is alleged to have in the Donbass. Thoughts? Albrecht (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This strikes me as a matter of content meant for the talk page of the article. Be weary of forum shopping. We've had numerous and superfluous discussions on the talk page about the "Supported by". Please note that I maintained the "Supported by" in the infobox for months until sources were provided by various editors that made it clear that Russia admitted to carrying out intervention in the Donbass. This intervention (the forcing through of the "humanitarian convoy") was viewed as an "invasion" by the Ukrainian government. I believe the Ukrainian government is capable of deciding whether it was invaded or not. RGloucester 03:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from calling into question my good faith: the exchange on the talk page was obviously deadlocked, so soliciting the opinion of editors accustomed to this topic and its best practices (despite your stated disdain for this WikiProject) was the obvious and logical next step.
To be frank, I'm not sure your inflammatory rhetoric about Russia's actions are very relevant or helpful. There are multiple POVs regarding the Russian aid convoy: it has been variously labelled a "provocation," a "violation of Ukraine's sovereignty," etc. by Kiev and its allies (then again, Kiev is accustomed to issuing all sorts of alarmist reports that quickly prove baseless). The Russians view it as a humanitarian mission. The UN "regrets that the issue of humanitarian aid is being politicized" by both sides. All of these POVs can and should be captured. The point I'm making—the point you refuse to engage with, unfortunately—is that none of these statements are consistent with Russia being a belligerent party under international law (your sheer outrage doesn't make it so), and it's clearly not accurate or informative to list it as such when the overwhelming precedent is to differentiate belligerents from their patrons or supporters. Albrecht (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing was "deadlocked". You did not even wait for others to comment there, nor did you take the time to read the talk page archives. Regardless, I'm not "outraged" at all. To be frank, I don't really care what Russia does or doesn't do. Regardless, I think that a country is capable of deciding whether it was "invaded" or not, don't you think? Regardless of what "Russians" may or may not think, this action was a violation of international law, a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, a violation of the agreement with the ICRC and the Ukrainian government, and a clear provocative act. There is no question about it. We don't enforce a false balance here. We don't go by original research interpretations of "international law" here, to decide who is a belligerent and who isn't. We go by reliable sources. RGloucester 04:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
My dear RGloucester, given your penchant for combative statements and cavalier attitudes above, it does no good to put on a a mask of serene impartiality suddenly and proclaim unconditional loyalty to WP:RS: no one will be impressed by such talk.
I agree wholeheartedly that we don't engage in original research to decide who is a belligerent and who isn't—such as interpreting a violation of territorial sovereignty as an invasion (a U.S. spy plane recently illegally violated Swedish airspace; does a state of war therefore exist between Sweden and the United States?). I would also add that we don't ignore overwhelming established precedent in how outside parties to a civil conflict are represented in an Infobox, viz., as "Supporters".
Moreover, some of your facts about the situation do not stand up to careful scrutiny (reports out of Ukraine are extremely muddled and convoluted; all the more reason for caution and avoiding extreme statements in the article): the ICRC never stated that Russia had "violated" its agreement; rather the ICRC itself reneged on its pledge to escort the convoy as Kiev would not guarantee its safety. The latest ICRC release states it is distributing the Russian aid in Lugansk and doesn't contain a whisper of recrimination against Russia. Methinks, my friend, you protest way, way too much. Albrecht (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, please don't disregard the wide range of informed commentary, including this Kiev-based Ukrainian sociologist, which questions the extent to which the Kremlin is really in control of events in the region at all:

Q. How far was the presence of the volunteers an initiative driven by the Putin administration?
A. The degree of Russian state interference is not very clear to me. Ukrainian state propaganda insists the whole movement is directed from Russia, but this is a misreading of the situation. Of course, some of the Russian volunteers could be state agents; but the majority are probably just volunteers—and there are many Russians willing to fight in Ukraine to help the Russian nationalist cause. People in the rest of Ukraine tend to see the rebellion in the east as a Russian intervention or a ‘terrorist action’, in line with the government’s announcement in mid-April that it was starting an ‘anti-terrorist operation’. But in the Donbass, according to a poll in May, 56 per cent call it a people’s revolt; for them, it is something with local roots and a local base of support, despite the participation of Russian volunteers. Either way, I don’t think their presence changes the nature of the conflict. Tens of thousands of international volunteers fought in the Spanish Civil War, and Germany and Italy sent regular troops, but this didn’t alter the fact that the conflict was an internal one, between Republicans and Francoists. If you look at the separatist fighters who have been killed by Ukrainian government forces, there are certainly a number of Russians, but a significant proportion are Ukrainians. This really is a civil war.

Perhaps the proper move is to reevaluate Russia's presence in the Infobox altogether, and simply detail the allegations and counter-allegations in the body of the article. Albrecht (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll not continue this conversation here any further. It is quite clear that you have no interest in reasonable discussion, and regardless, this is not the place for discussions of content. If you have something to discuss, do it at the article talk page. RGloucester 15:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I hate to intrude, but this seems like rather a non-issue and is certainly not unique to the article in question. Why not changed "Supported by" to "Alleged Support" and then include a footnote explaining the controversy? References of all sorts should generally be avoided in the infobox anyway where possible, and it currently looks rather a mess. A note would allow this to be fully explained and look neater. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll take you up on that suggestion. RGloucester , are you prepared to work constructively with me and others to implement Brigade Piron's proposal? Albrecht (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said, I won't discuss content here. Please take it to the talk page if you have something to say. RGloucester 17:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Did You Know's[edit]

There are a few military related DYKs in the nominations queue for July 30, Aug 3, etc. If someone has time, can they go over and review them? Thanks in advance! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment for 30 SW[edit]

As mentioned above, I have gone ahead and opened a request for comment on 30 SW's edits on this project, as they have added a lot of material, but it has come with a lot of problems associated with it. Please comment there if you are interested and have a background in modern American military history, as I would like to seek input from users on what should be done, since they are clearly knowledgeable in many aspects of this field, but are adding a lot of errors as they go along. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained edits[edit]

Alexander Gellos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A new editor called user:Alexander Gellos has since may 18 2014 made 250 edits all of them unexplained to battle articles. I have left a message on User talk:Alexander Gellos asking the user to added explanations for edits in the edit history.

Some of the edits have added fairly large amount of unsourced text to articles (see this example), some have removed large amounts of sourced text from articles. In some articles those edits have been reverted (see here) but there are other edits that have been made which have not (see here). Whether this is because other editors agree with the edits or because no one is watching the pages is not clear. I think it would he helpful if the community could review the edits and see if they are beneficial to the project. -- PBS (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted some edits which seemed particularly unhelpful to me. Someone with more subject matter expertise than I have needs to looks at Battle of Arcole and the associated changes and renames.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories on redirects[edit]

I've been going back and forth with Look2See1. They keep adding categories to Operation Shingle, which is now a redirect. This seems to be incorrect and they won't give me a clear explanation. Please resolve, as I've had quite enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I am aware of for putting categories on a redirect page is WP:RCAT#Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category, which does not seem to apply here, particularly when the Battle of Anzio contains the same categories. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:RCAT#Alternative names for articles might be relevant. "The category system is often used like an alphabetical index. It is sometimes helpful for redirects from common alternative names to appear in the index list." (Hohum @) 17:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Under MilHist?[edit]

Checking to see if William of Wrotham would be considered within ya'lls scope - much of his notability is due to his naval administrative work for King John. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

He loosely is in the scope, but it still counts as being in here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Fortified cities and Category:Walled towns[edit]

FYI Category:Walled towns and Category:Fortified cities have been requested to be merged together -- (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A-Class articles close to the line[edit]

Hi all, a few A-Class Reviews are sitting on two supports and could use another reviewer, or even just earlier reviewers returning to check progress, to get over the line (disclaimer, one's mine!):

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/German cruiser Prinz Eugen is in the same position and I'm in the process of reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Historical register and dictionary of the US Army[edit]

"Found" (assuming no one found it before) while working on Draft: Regiment of Riflemen (United States). There's a lot of interesting stuff about units and people and it's downloadable.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Heitman, Francis B. (1903). "Historical register and dictionary of the United States Army". War Department. 

Two days until the kickoff of the September-October 2014 backlog reduction drive!!![edit]

The Great Backlog Drive Banner 1.jpg

G'day Milhisters, just a reminder that the 1 September-15 October 2014 backlog reduction drive starts in two days! Sign up here! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC) (for the Milhist coordinators)

2014 Crimean crisis[edit]

This article is a disaster area. I'm busy with War in Donbass, among other things, and simply haven't the time nor the ability to try and make it somewhat comprehensible. That's why I'd like to request that any interested editors with a knack for writing articles on military history take a look at it and try and bring it up to a reasonable standard. Honestly, 2014 Crimean crisis is an absolute shame on Wikipedia. It is entirely incomprehensible, and barely has any prose. What it does have is broken English. Please help the encyclopaedia in this vital area! RGloucester 21:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Input sought on British Empire in World War II[edit]

Hi all,

A user has proposed that the current article terminology ("British Empire") be moved to "British Commonwealth". All input is welcome! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)