Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Waricon.svg Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News
Showcase
Style guide
Announcements and open tasks
 → Articles needing attention
 → Popular articles
 → New articles
 → Nominations for deletion talk
The Academy talk
Task forces
edit · changes
Shortcut:
WT:MILHIST

Contents

[edit] Task Force housekeeping

Now might perhaps be a good time to consolidate some of the quieter TFs into larger, more active, ones. Obvious candidates are:

Thoughts?  Roger Davies talk 13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all suggested mergers. Buckshot06(prof) 14:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
No objections here. EyeSerenetalk 16:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the Ottoman one. The Ottomans were from very early on a European power as well as an Anatolian one, and a very active one at that. One could even argue that the centre of power of the Ottoman state before 1517 was in Europe rather than Asia. But even after the defeat of the Mamelukes, and with the exception of the wars with Persia, most of the Ottoman military activity actually happened in Europe. The Middle East may have formed the bulk of the Empire, but in terms of foreign policy & military history, the Ottomans were most active in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe. Constantine ✍ 17:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm of the same mind with the Ottoman Task Force. The Ottoman Empire's main military campaigns were fought on European/Central Asian soil (with Russia, Austria, Austria-Hungary, etc). I have to agree w/ Constantine that Ottoman Military should remain separate. As for the others, I have no objections. Cam (Chat) 19:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that's true, but this is more about whether or not the Ottoman TF is active enough to support its existence as a standalone TF. Perhaps we could look at other TFs to find a more suitable one for a merger? EyeSerenetalk 07:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Agree with all mergers; they can always be de-merged if enough people join them. Skinny87 (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that while separating two merged task forces may be theoretically possible, it's an utter nightmare in terms of practical logistics; so we shouldn't make this decision lightly, with the idea that we can flip between the two arrangements. If we're going to merge things, we should be reasonably confident that we won't need to un-merge them at least in the foreseeable future. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree with naming of new Australizan/New Zealand Task Force, if its scope is going to include other nations in that region, perhaps it should be named the Oceania task force.
  • Disagree with the merging of the Taiwanese and/or Chinese Military History Task Forces. As seen in the argument of who is a Taiwanese and Chinese American both words are politically loaded and contentious, and although all editors are suppose to maintain a NPOV, this may cause some tension in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Oceanian military history" sounds like a reasonable alternative to "Australasian military history"; I assume there's nothing controversial about the term in the region in question?
  • Nothing wrong except your suffix. I've never heard of 'Oceanian', ever. I'd suggest sticking with Oceania. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 21:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Really? I'd always assumed that "Oceanian" was the common adjective form (cf. Category:Oceanian countries). Do people there normally only use the noun form, even in an adjective role? Things like "Oceania history" and so forth sound off to me, but that could be a mistaken assumption on my part. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Although, looking at this further, Military history of Oceania uses "Oceanic" instead. Is that a more common term? Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I've never heard of either. Prefer 'Oceania military history.' Buckshot06(prof) 00:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've heard both Oceanian and Oceanic, but never Oceania as an adjective. Perhaps Oceanic would sound better here. – Joe N 01:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems I'm outvoted. Oceanic military history will do fine. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as the Taiwanese one is concerned, I don't think that we should let the political issue keep us from doing what's best for the project. The alternative, in my opinion, would likely involve deleting the Taiwanese TF entirely; it's far too small and inactive to sustain itself, or be worth maintaining merely for organizational value. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Another possible candidate might be the Romanian TF into the Balkan TF. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Romania was normally not considered part of the Balkans. Is that not the case? Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
What about upgrading the Romania task force into a central Europe task force that would cover all the missing countries? - Czech Republic, Hungary, Austria, etc? Buckshot06(prof) 21:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It's more Eastern Europe than Central Europe, really—and that's one area where trying to merge task forces together will almost certainly cause huge fights to break out. It's better to leave those particular task forces well enough alone, in my opinion, even if they're not quite as a active as we'd like.
(The potential is certainly there, in any case; the sheer numbers of articles involved are quite high, even if we have too few editors working on them.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If we created just a general Eastern Europe TF that included the Balkans, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus (possibly even the countries currently in the Nordic TF), and overlapped slightly with European Russia, that would avoid political issues. The main drawback would be that it might become rather large in terms of number of articles. – Joe N 01:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Whatever Romania is, it certainly isn't Central Europe, which would be Germany, Switzerland Austria, the northern part of Italy, Czech republic, and an eastern swath of Hungary. If you look at the history journals that deal with "Central Europe"... they define it pretty clearly. Eastern Europe, then covers Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, etc. Point: for a good part of the early modern and modern past, most of the armies from those areas would fall under Habsburg or HRE categories. While they have a long history as a people, they have a relatively short history as a state.
  • One of the elements I find fascinating about this discussion is the move from nationalist military history, toward geopolitical definitions that are not necessarily nationalistic. Veeeeery interesting. Is there a problem with having task forces that deal with the areas/states that have active members, and then putting the others in general geographic clusters? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned at the name Military science and technology task force - I think the military science part gets lost, and it sounds as if it's just about science and technology in a military context. Military science is, of course, the study of the causative factors and tactical principles of warfare (per Dictionary.com - though Military science seems to think it's about technology and equipment) and thus embraces articles on strategy and tactics rather than technology. But then I'm a member of the Military science task force, and I've never done anything specifically arising from it, so my views shouldn't count for much. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Weighing in finally on these...
  • Taiwanese military history absorbed into Chinese military history: Have to admit the first thing I thought of here was current political significance of such a merger, even though I know that's not what's meant with this proposal, so I have to say I'm not particularly comfortable with it.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd vote for Australasian task force- almost no-one uses "Oceanic" in everyday use and Australia and NZ are going to be the major components of the taskforce anyway, so "Australasian" is fine IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd also say "Australasian". "Oceanic" is an adjective that refers to the oceans rather than Oceania. Constantine ✍ 14:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Australasian works best for me. It's unambiguous and, as Ian mentions, Oceania is very Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Roger Davies talk 08:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. I see nothing wrong with having both an Australian task force and a New Zealand one. IMO an Oceania task force would be difficult to live with (being melodramic of course), although an Australasian one would be acceptable but only grudgingly. I think the Australian task force in particular is a fairly active one and if we accept the recent rogue creation of the Pakistan task force we should be able to justify the continued existance of the Australian one. Personnally I don't see the need for the change. Anotherclown (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
That part of the proposal isn't about ending the existence of the Australian TF, which I agree is one of our more productive ones, but rather finding a natural home for the all-but-inactive New Zealand TF. I suppose there's no real harm in keeping inactive TFs on the books, but in terms of the (albeit small) administrative overhead it makes sense to rationalise them where we can. EyeSerenetalk 09:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any comments? Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Kirill, you've seen my comments above - just want to say I continue to support the merger of TFs as per my notes above. Don't really have any strong opinion what the Aust/NZ task force is called, but believe it should be merged. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Kirill, I too support a merger of the Australian and NZ task forces, however, because it has been proposed that the smaller populated island nations be included within its scope, I only have disagreement on what it is named. For that part I believe the name should be as inclusive as possible. Furthermore, I believe we all have the understanding that military forces in American Samoa will remain within the scope of the US Task force?
However, I do object to the merger of the Taiwanese/RoC Task Force with the Chinese/PRC Task Force, due to the political issues that may arise from it, as I had stated above.
For all other mergers, I have no opinion on them, and should continue per consensus, if one has been reached. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi RightCowLeftCoast, what Kirill's told me in the past with 'delineation' issues like American Samoa is that he's happiest if there are no particular inclusion restrictions. Am Samoa issues might attract two taskforce tags, but his argument would be there's no harm in that.
For the record, I have no objection to merging the ROC and Chinese task forces. Buckshot06(prof) 20:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I see no harm in both TF's being able to improve any military articles relating to American Samoa, just as long as there is no exclusion, of the US Task Force, then it should be all gravy. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
While my contributions in this area have been modest, I don't see the wisdom in merging Military Science with Military Science and Technology. The former is more fundamental and relatively invariant with time whereas the latter has many many more pages devoted to it and changes constantly. Military Science has no real impact on technology. Technology does mediate the application of Military Science but not the fundamental principles which are centuries old. Dduff442 (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say change the Indian one to a whole subcontinental/South Asia one. The Pakistan one is simply pointless and some SL and Bangladesh are floating in SE Asia YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive) 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion.  Roger Davies talk 10:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I support this suggestion. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Add Nepal to the subcontinent/S Asia one, maybe Afghanistan as well; the Taliban is current "middle east" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll flag this discussion up in the new edition of The Bugle to get a bit more feedback so we can move it towards a resolution.  Roger Davies talk 09:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree to a South Asian task force. In fact, this has been proposed before as well. Taking an example from the area I work in; articles related to the Sri Lankan civil war either have no regional task force or are in the Idian/south east asian ones as YellowMonkey mentioned. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this one, also. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, the conversation so far is fairly chaotic, and deliberation about any one task force suggestion is getting lost in between the conversations relating to the others. I think a subsection for each proposal should be created (maybe with a summary of the opinion so far as observed by one or more of the Coordinators): that way, we can keep discussion of the proposals out of each others' way. -- saberwyn 08:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

As requested, with the caveat that I've contributed to the discussion above so am not technically uninvolved. If anyone feels I have misjudged consensus as a result, please feel free to amend as necessary :) I suggest further discussion, if desired, takes place under each proposal's individual section. EyeSerenetalk 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwanese military history and Chinese military history

  • Original proposal: Taiwanese military history (one editor) could be absorbed into Chinese military history.
  • Summary of discussion: Few explicit opinions (outside blanket approvals) have been offered either way. The main objection is that the merger may have awkward political ramifications; this has been countered by the suggestion that politics should have no bearing on what's best for Milhist, and because the Taiwanese TF is so small the alternative might be to remove it entirely.
  • Consensus position so far: Merger approved
I believe that I am the only one opposed to the merger at this point. No? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Ian Rose also expressed a concern, for the same reasons, although it wasn't an outright oppose. EyeSerenetalk 12:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Australian military history and New Zealand military history

  • Original proposal: Australian military history and New Zealand military history, with a scope expanded to include the Pacific Islands, could be merged to form the Australasian task force.
  • Summary of discussion: The idea of some form of merger has attracted almost unanimous support; however, what to call the new task force has been more contentious. Suggestions have included "Australasian military history", "Oceaniac military history", and variants on the two. Both Australasian and Oceaniac have attracted support.
  • Consensus position so far: Principle of merger approved; no clear consensus as yet for the new task force name (although "Australasian military history" may have a slight edge)
    • I would lean towards "Australasian", as, although I am familiar with the term "Oceania" for the region, I have never heard the term "Oceaniac". Also, at first glance, most people would read the name as task force for oceans. -- saberwyn 03:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I've changed my mind to be in favour of Australian and New Zealand military history task force, and limiting inclusion to those two nations. -- saberwyn 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Although I have already stated it, I support a title relating to the Oceania region, it is more inclusive a term and doesn't favor a single nation within said region. Alternatively South West Pacific redirects to the Oceania page, at like the suggested South Asia TF, SWP TF may also be an idea and has historic precedents in the SWPA. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Would SWP then also include the Phillipines, then? If not, we're likely to cause confusion due to the common meaning of the name in WWII matters; but I'm not sure that there's a good argument to be made for expanding into SE Asia either. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, lets leave SE Asia out of this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I would support a task force called 'Australian and New Zealand military history task force, but I would not support a task force called Oceaniac or Oceania military history task force. My reason for this is that the majority of the articles that would be in the task force would be Australian and New Zealand and hence the other hangers on would just be the poor cousins that probably wouldn't get improved anyway. Why not an A&NZ task force, which could exist alongside the currently existing South East Asian task force, which could be expanded to include the Pacific Islands nations. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Another idea is that there could be the ANZAC or Australian and New Zeland task force, or whatever you want to name it, leave the South East Asian Task Force as is, and then have/create a Polynesia/Micronesia/Melanesia task force for those other nations and territories which were termed by someone else in this discussion as "poor cousins". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Whatever we do, I would really like to see something covering all those islands. I support Oceanic, which covers those and sounds less awkward than Australasian (it's really long and hard to spell). – Joe N 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lebanese military history and Ottoman military history

  • Original proposal: Lebanese military history and Ottoman military history are merged into Middle Eastern military history.
  • Summary of discussion: This has attracted little explicit support (although comes under several blanket approvals). There have been no objections to merging the Lebanese TF with the Middle Eastern TF; the main opposition arises from suggestions that the Ottoman sphere of influence was not limited to the Middle East. However, the question of whether it is active enough to support its stand-alone existence, or could be merged with a more suitable task force, remains to be examined.
  • Consensus position so far: Lebanese task force; merger approved. Ottoman task force; accounting for blanket supports, there is a weak consensus for the merger. However, further discussion may be desirable.
I support the merger of the Lebanese task force into the Middle East task force, but think that perhaps the Ottoman task force needs to be separate. After all it is not so much a geographical grouping in that regard, but rather a period of history. For example, the ACW task force is separate from the US, as is Napoleonic from French, British etc. I'm not involved in any of these task forces, though, so my vote might be a little redundant. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Military science and Military technology and engineering

  • Original proposal: Military science could be merged with Military technology and engineering to form the Military science and technology task force.
  • Summary of discussion: Again, this has attracted a number of blanket but few explicit supports. A concern was raised that Military Science has meanings incompatible with Military technology and engineering, but although acknowledged this has not been widely echoed.
  • Consensus position so far: Merger approved

[edit] Romanian military history and Balkan military history

  • Proposal emerged during debate: Romanian military history could be merged into the Balkan military history task force.
  • Summary of discussion: The point was made that Romania is not considered part of the Balkans; further suggestions then involved the creation of a wider "Eastern European task force" that might include "Balkans, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus (possibly even the countries currently in the Nordic TF), and [portions of] European Russia".
  • Consensus position so far: Not moved beyond initial proposal stage; further discussion needed
Approve merger of Romanian task force into Balkan task force. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I also support this merger. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Indian military history and Pakistani military history

  • Proposal emerged during debate: Merger of Indian and Pakistani task forces into a newly-created South Asian military history task force, to include areas such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Afghanistan.
  • Summary of discussion: Unanimous support so far.
  • Consensus position so far: Merger approved, although this suggestion has not yet attracted wide participation and further input would be useful.
Approve merger of both into South Asian task force. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Should it also include Bhutan, Maldives, Tibet, the British Indian Ocean Territories, per the South Asia article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Tibet seems out of place, both politically—the Chinese/Taiwanese thing is paralleled here—and historically, since there was little military similarity between Tibet and the Subcontinent. (Having said that, I'm not sure if we even have any articles on Tibetan military history at the moment, so this may be a moot point.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Not Tibet, as there is little/no military activity across the Himalayas until the last 100 or so years and Tibetan military issues have always been with Chinese invasions. In the old days, Chinese pilgrims and Buddhist scholars etc always went up to Kazakhstan and turned around and went through modern Afghanistan and Pakistan to get to the foothills of Nepal to places like Varanasi and Lumbini. The Himalayas were virtually impassable. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
How about the eight SAARC nations, since these are the ones generally regarded as south asian countries? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I would see no problem with that, except in so far that it should include the islands of the Indian Ocean north of the equator and east of the 60E Longitude, and should not extend to China if it were to become a full member of SAARC. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a suitable scope to me. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Next steps

This thread has now been archived a couple of times for lack of comment, which may be an indication that everyone who wants to has had their say (at least for the moment). Therefore unless there are any objections, I'm intending to close up those proposals which have consensus in the next 48 hours or so. Summary below. EyeSerenetalk 09:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Struck; last call for comments going out in newsletter so will hold off for a little while. EyeSerenetalk 15:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the following changes are approved:

  • Taiwanese military history will be absorbed into Chinese military history
  • Lebanese military history will be absorbed into Middle Eastern military history
  • Military science will be merged with Military technology and engineering to form Military science and technology
  • Romanian military history will be absorbed into Balkan military history
  • Indian military history will be merged with Pakistani military history to form South Asian military history

Those areas that do not have consensus are:

  • The scope and name of the new combined Australia/New Zealand/Pacific Islands task force
  • The absorption of Ottoman military history into Middle Eastern military history (no consensus=status quo, so the current position is that Ottoman military history will be retained as a separate entity)
  • The scope of the new South Asian military history task force
Fully support these proposed changes; I'm sure the remaining issues can be worked out in time. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
What objections I have have already been expressed, and seeing as how I appear to be in the minority opinion, the ROC/PRC military history merger shall continue.
There appears to be some additional backing regarding my defined scope for the South Asian military history task force, see above.
I don't believe there is so much a question of scope, as much as name. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, unless I've missed something I'm not seeing any objections to "South Asian military history" as the name. Have I understood your point correctly?
Re the scope, I agree it does now seem there's a consensus emerging to include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and the islands of the Indian Ocean. EyeSerenetalk 08:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No objection to the name, no objection ot the scope. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Endorse name and scope for SATF. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No objections from me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, forgot one thing, the islands of the Indian Ocean shouldn't include the islands off the eastern coast of Africa, which should be in that task forces scope. Therefore Madagascar, Seychelles, & Mauritius should fall under African military history task force. And thus my statement earlier regarding the part of the Indian Ocean that should be under the new SATF.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Military Science and Military Technology would be clearer. Very very few people with an interest in military matters have an interest in Mil Science. The vanishingly small number will struggle to find it under 'Science and Technology'.Dduff442 (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notability Military Biography

Should we work on a set of guidelines to set up for what makes someone, based on their military service, notable enough to warrant an article? In the past I have seen the following bantered about (however none of it has been formally set down such as WP:NBAND):

  • Individual achieved a rank that would be considered a Flag officer
  • Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valor, such as the Medal of Honor
  • Individual was notable for an event regarding a military related activity/event that was widely covered by multiple third party reliably sourced verifiable sources.

Perhaps there should be more criterea set forth, such as multiple awardings of their nation's second (and possibly third) level award/medal for valor? Either way I look forwrd to the comments that this discussion brings up, and hope we get a WP:MILBIO out of this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome the creation of such a set of guidelines, but would suggest the single awarding of a second or third level award (Military Medal, Silver Star etc) not make someone notable without any other achievements, lest we get bombarded with every winner in military history, I'll also link this AfD where consensus showed that a Silver Star winner, without any other significant achievements, was not notable. Of course, any such guidelines will have to be based off the need for WP:Reliable Sources. Skinny87 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, what I was thinking was that if someone is awarded a second level award, they would need to be awarded it at least twice to meet notability standards. To expand on that, if someone is awarded a third level award, they would have to be awarded it at least 3 times in order to meet notability standards. These awards, would have to be awarded for valorous actions, therefore say awardees of the Distinguished Service Medal, and its equivalent in the U.S. and elsewhere, wouldn't meet notability because it is a non valorous medal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore I would also like to propose another criteria for military biographical notability, enlisted servicemembers who hold/held the position of Sergeant Major of the Army, and its equivalents in the U.S. and elsewhere (that is Senior Enlisted Advisors at the Branch/Service/Joint/National level of command). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A proposal:
  • Individual achieved a rank that would be considered a Flag officer
  • Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valour, such as the Medal of Honor
  • Individual was notable for an event regarding a military related activity/event that was widely covered by multiple third party reliably sourced verifiable sources.
  • Individual made a material contribution to the science of war/doctrine/tactics that is today undisputedly attributed to that individual and may be substantiated by multiple verifiable sources.
  • Individual is the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of, or conduct of war, verifiable by multiple, reliable sources.
  • Individual is recognised by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing, verifiable my multiple published references to his/her works.
Farawayman (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest that we also include what is found on WP:MILMOS#NOTE, minus the statement "or a significant portion of one". I have seen Brigade Commanders woes unit saw combat be deleted as not meeting notability. What do you think about my proposal to include multiple secondary level medal/award for valor awardee, and senior enlisted advisors, as being notable?
I like the WP:MILMOS#NOTE criteria of (a.) People who commanded a substantial body of troops in combat, and (b.) Holders of top-level command positions (such as Chief of the General Staff). However, I do not agree with 2 x 2nd level award, 3 x 3rd level etc. It complicates things. A person who has a 3rd level award plus 2 bars should qualify under my bullet 3 above! Air aces is more complicated, because they did not receive valour awards for kills.... I'm not too sure how to manage that! Farawayman (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Also flying aces should be included as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Why? Are they all notable? Also, I'm not convinced that all flag officers are notable; see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army Deputy Surgeon General, which covered a three star with an unremarkable peacetime career. Would we really need all the world's flag officers from all the peaceful portions of history? Buckshot06(prof) 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I should have contested that. Oh well, to late now; I should pay more attention in the future. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Buckshot - revised proposal:
  1. Individual was notable for playing an important role in a significant military event OR commanded a substantial body of troops in combat— all of which were widely covered by multiple, reliable third party verifiable sources.
  2. Individual achieved a rank that would be considered a Flag officer OR was a holder of a top-level command position (such as Chief of the General Staff) AND complies to the criteria of 1 above.
  3. Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valour, such as the Medal of Honor
  4. Individual made a material contribution to the science of war/doctrine/tactics that is today undisputedly attributed to that individual and may be substantiated by multiple verifiable sources.
  5. Individual is the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of, or conduct of war, verifiable by multiple, reliable sources.
  6. Individual is recognised by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing, verifiable my multiple published references to his/her works.
Fighter Aces would qualify under terms of #1 if achievement was sufficiently notable. Farawayman (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding the AND criteria for #2, above, makes it redundant. I would rather return it to Flag officer or top-level command position. Buckshot asks if we would we really need all the world's flag officers from all the peaceful portions of history -- I would reply 'yes'. --Ejosse1 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we've normally gone by the GNG and required significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. I can understand why it's proposed that certain individuals might be notable solely because of their position, but that's presupposing that the sources will exist to write about them. In many, if not most, cases, they will, but I'd rather stick with what we currently have at WP:MILMOS#NOTE and judge each case on its merits. I can see the value of expanding the examples, or even creating a specific section, to clarify what probably isn't notable (and hopefully prevent AfDs like Skinny's linked to above), but I think it might be a mistake if we go down the route of saying that, no matter what, certain people are automatically notable. For example, it isn't so much that someone holds a certain medal that makes them notable, but what they did to be awarded it (and hence what we can source from what was written about it). EyeSerenetalk 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with eveserene on this one. If we establish such requirements, it also looks like only those people who meet those criteria are "notable" for military biography. This eliminates a lot of people who didn't have such credentials but fall into the category of "military biography"...The one i can think of off hand is Joan of Arc, but there would be others whose sole claim to notability is a military issue, but they didn't command anything, they weren't flag officers, or whatever. If the distinction is to determine notability based on what is written about them, that should be sufficient.
Look, this isn't acceptable. We need some kind of guidelines, even if MILBIOS just has something added to it about reliable sources always coming first. Otherwise things like the Edson AfD will happen again and again, and this project will still have no authoritative guideline to point to when the writer of an article on a Silver Star-winning, non-notable otherwise individual, inevitably kicks up a fuss during an AfD. Skinny87 (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd normally avoid this but two comments. Joan of Arc would qualify under #1 in Farawayman's classification, as would a great many past military celebrities. However, I would like to see something reflecting contemporary status, even as a secondary criterion. For example, Sgt. Ewart at Waterloo, in capturing a French eagle, achieved great celebrity and deserves an entry whereas others who done so previously were less remembered perhaps do not. I also feel that authors of famed military memoirs or other significant artistic achievements connected to their military service should also qualify. Monstrelet (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why a WP:MILBIO cannot exist, as an addition to the standard rules of Notability, if anything those covered under MILBIO should at minimum already meet general notability guidelines (also known as GNG). Furthermore, I don't see why all flag/general officers shouldn't warrant an article, even if it is a stub, and to expand on that, their Senior Enlisted Advisor counterparts. Being a flag/general officer means that the subject has already been recognized as a significant individual within a countries military; also, if the most senior position in a nation's military, say Monaco for example, is a Colonel, than the person holding that most senior position should warrant an article as well, and falls under point #2, in the previous list. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, we can certainly create a WP:MILBIO if that's the way consensus is going. However, you've acknowledged the importance of the GNG but then seem to be contradicting yourself by suggesting all flag-rank officers are automatically notable. I wonder if there's some confusion about an individual's real-world significance and their Wikipedia notability? The two aren't the same. In Wikipedia terms, notable individuals are only notable because they've been the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Winning a medal or holding a rank may be of significance, but unless the sources exist to produce a verifiable article about it, our writing it into a BIO guideline won't matter. Milhist doesn't exist in a vacuum, and we can't design our own notability criteria which contradict core Wikipedia editorial policies like WP:5P. EyeSerenetalk 08:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that anyone is arguing that the individuals need not be verified by reliable third party sources, however I think what some of us are advocating are a set of standards by which those article that have been deleted in the past, even though they do meet general notability guidelines for a biography, are deleted because the are not seen as notable enough. A perfect example was the Army Deputy Surgeon General article stated above, which is highly notable within the U.S. Army medical community but that others do not see as notable outside of it. Theoretically such articles should survive on meeting general notability guideleines alone, however even if well references we have seen articles deleted in the past that might have otherwise been saved if a WP:MILBIO had existed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New proposed WP:MILBIO:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if he/she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the individual. In particular, the following types of individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify:

  • Individual was awarded their nation's first level award/award for valour/valor.
  • Individual was awarded their nation's second level award for valour/valor multiple times (such as Distinguished Service Cross).
  • Individual was promoted to a rank that would be considered a flag/general officer.
  • Individual held the position that is the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or department/ministry their off (such as Chief of Army Staff).
  • Individual held the position of Senior enlisted advisor for a Capital ship, or unit of Division designation and greater.
  • Individual was notable for playing an important role in a significant military event OR commanded a substantial body of troops in combat. Substantial body of troops shall be a Capital ship or a Division and greater.
  • Individual made a material contribution to Military science that is today undisputedly attributed to that individual and may be substantiated by multiple verifiable sources.
  • Individual is the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of, or conduct of war.
  • Individual is recognised by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.
Furthermore, if one or more of the criteria set above is meet and verifiable by multiple reliable sources independent of the individual, they shall be considered notable. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Edited slightly to simplify the language and clarify applicability to older topics:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

  1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or
  2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or
  3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents; or
  4. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or
  5. Held the position of senior enlisted advisor for a substantial body of troops; or
  6. Played an important role in a significant military event; or
  7. Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or
  8. Made a material contribution to military science that is undisputedly attributed to them; or
  9. Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war; or
  10. Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.
For the purposes of these criteria, a "substantial body of troops" refers to a capital ship, or a division or larger formation, and their historical equivalents. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable.
Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hot damn, now that's what I've been looking for. That's exactly what we need, especially since it's also still based on the need for reliable sources and the like. Thanks Kirill! Skinny87 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I shouldn't have used the disambiguous page for the DSC, the second level award in the Commonwealth is the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, whereas in the U.S. it is the DSC/NC/AFC. Furthermore, an idea, is there an article/template for all nation's secondary award/medal for valor?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Skinny87's remarks. I have numbered the criteria to make referencing easier. Farawayman (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Fixed link, to a second level medal/award. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this is heading in the right direction, but a question that springs to mind is "how rigid are these guidelines?" I assume articles will be always assessed on a case by case basis (although this should probably be incorporated into the wording above), but I think there are too many qualifications that will cause confusion: for example, how will it be established whether someone "Played an important role in a significant military event" or "Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat"? An example is Lionel Sadleir-Jackson, who commanded British troops in northern Russia in 1919. He doesn't seem to clearly qualify under any of the above guidelines (he never commanded a division), but in the context of the North Russia Campaign he is quite important. Does he qualify? My concern is that the project is limiting itself too much by having guidelines that are too strict - will they be used in Afds as an absolute decree or as a starting point for discussion?--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I would say as a starting point for discussions. If the individual meets general notability guidelines for a biography article, then regardless if they meet any of those that are listed, then the article should be able to stand. If anything the requirement that "they have received significant coverage in multiple independent" (that reminds me we should add the word verifiable (done)) means the should already meet said requirement. If anything I think this serves as more of a backstop, for those articles that show that they meet one or more of the criteria listed, but allows the article to be saved by meeting one of the criterea set forth via a a single verifiable reliably sourced reference. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The WP:MILBIO shortcut is taken, by the Military Biography task force. Perhaps it could be given five shortcuts for each of the five branches, those would be WP:SAILOR, WP:MARINE, WP:COASTIE, WP:AIRMAN, and WP:SOLDIER. Or we can find a different shortcut or reuse WP:MIL#NOTE, and then add it to the page WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BIO#MIL, perhaps? WP:MIL#NOTE can't be reused, since that's just a section link off of the core WP:MIL shortcut. Kirill [talk] [pf] 12:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well each of the other professions have a named shortcut, that is common to the profession. Unfortunatly, there is no single common name for servicemembers of multiple branches from different countries which is common throughout. Thus why I proposed multiple named shortcuts. But I can completely see the reason for a single shortcut, for simplicity sake. How about WP:MILITBIO?
Also how do we make this official? Does there need to be a consensus polling on this? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Because this is a fairly major initiative that will affect most task-forces, it might be worth writing up a summary (perhaps in a new thread or sub-thread of this one) stating the wording of the suggested guidelines and identifying any areas that need further discussion. It looks to me like there's general support for some kind of guideline, but the details still have to be settled: the wording; the location/shortcut; the level of prescriptiveness etc. To get as many eyes as possible on it, perhaps we could spam a link round the task-forces, and mention it in the next edition of the newsletter. Personally I'd rather avoid polling if possible - a discussion such as this has been, with comments rather than support/oppose !votes, tends to be more informative :) EyeSerenetalk 09:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I like that proposal other than #5: senior NCOs don't receive all that much coverage and I've seen a few articles about the senior NCOs in US Army divisions be deleted as a result of AfDs, so they shouldn't be assumed to be notable and articles on them should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree, as senior NCOs have just as much time in service, and often just as much prestige due to their position (as a senior enlisted advisor of a significant command) and service, as a general or flag officer of that command. As the proposed guideline indicates, as long as the individual can be sufficiently referenced to meet WP:NN notability requirements, then the article should stand on that alone. If anything the exclusion of #5, from the current WP:MIL#NOTE may have been the reason why those articles were deleted in the first place. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
'Prestige' is, by itself, not relevant to Wikipedia notability; what counts is the availability of reliable and independent sources. Senior NCOs don't normally receive much coverage beyond military-published sources. The AfDs were decided in reference to WP:BIO; one example (from memory) was that no-one could find any non-US Army published sources on the current (or very recent) senior NCO in the US 1st Armored Division. As this guidance can't override WP:BIO, it doesn't seem appropriate to me to include a clause which asserts notability on the basis of anything other than the expected availability of in-depth and independent reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I do understand that prestige is not relevent, as for the basic part verifiability and notability is at the most basic, what counts here. As long as secondary or tertiary source can be found to support, even if it is from the organization's (which would be secondary) which the NCO is a part of, then Notability should be achieved. And in its present wording the proposal doesn't assert notability based on expected available sources, but due to the criteria itself. However, even if the subject falls under those listed in the current proposal, it is still subject to notability guidelines, and base bio guidelines. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me correct myself, rereading the current proposal, it does say that those should have sufficient coverage. Therefore, I say, that as long as there is verifiable reliably sourced references can be found to support of the criterea set forth, then the individual who is the subject of a biography article, should be considered notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree EyeSerene, the more eyes on this proposal the better. But that being said, there is no reason why this initiative shouldn't be able to produce a good guideline for us to add to WP:BIO. Why don't we spam link this to all the task forces? Futhermore, the reason why I posted this discussion here rather then the TF that I am active in, is because it effects all TFs under this WPP. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
My opinion would be that we should extend the current guidelines to be automatically notable those who have achieved the highest rank in a nation, everyone else on the standard bio together with the current milhist guidelines Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, but as the originator of this discussion, I respectfully disagree due to the fact that there is not a current military criterea in WP:BIO, and the present WP:MILMOS#NOTE is insufficient when it comes to biography articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a word of caution about assessing notability automatically based on 'highest rank'. I believe that in some nations there is actually some fluidity in what the term highest rank actually means. For example technically the highest rank in the Australian Army is Field Marshal, yet it is rarely achieved (only twice, I think, if we don't count the Duke of Edinburgh, and probably really only once if we ignore Birdwood, whose Australian rank of field marshal was honorary). Basically what this means is that many Australian officers who rise to be Chief of Army, or even Chief of the Defence Force, while not achieving the technically highest rank, achieve the highest rank possible for them to achieve. Also, I think a similiar situation exists in the US Army with the rank of General of the Armies technically being the highest, but only having been bestowed twice (again, not sure of this figure, so apologies if I am wrong). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone wants to be exclusionary. However, my opinion on the matter is that anything that is not outlined above, should fall under general BIO or notable guidelines, whereas, those listed so far, should only require one or two verifiable reliably sourced references to establish notability under our WPP. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Field Marshal is not currently awarded so General is the highest awarded rank, In more general terms, there are far more exceptions to the rule in assessing notabilty, lets keep guidelines that can be interpreted and not go for an exclusive approach as some projects have adopted. Common law v Roman law Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is limiting notability of flag/general officers to being only the highest ranking officer, but rather, including ALL flag/general officers, the highest lvl military command position, not necessarily, rank. Therefore, although only a Colonel, the Head of Monaco's military would be given a lower verifiability requirement due to their position (maybe one or two econdary or tertiary reliable source(s)). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I proposed change to the current proposal, that the criteria listed above when verified by two reliable sources secondary or tertiary references, establish automatic notability, and that for those not on the list that notability be established through the standard bio requirements. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Let us take the temperature of the room, say over the next 14 days (until 3 November), to see who supports and who opposes establishing a more significant biography notability guideline then the current WP:MILMOS#NOTE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Support creating a new guideline

[edit] Oppose creating a new guideline

  • Developing a guideline is a very big project, and it isn't needed as WP:BIO is working fine for articles on military people. What is needed is some guidance on how it's works in practice, including indicators that the subject of the article is very likely to be notable. There's no need to take this beyond the level of WP:MILMOS or an essay, and there's very little chance that this would be accepted as a guideline without a strong case being made for the gap it's filling. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: I'd support expanding the essay on notability in WP:MILMOS, but I think as Nick states above, a stand alone guideline is probably not necessary, or likely to be accepted as it would always fall (in order of precedence, for want of a better term) behind the wider community guidelines of WP:N and WP:BIO. I definately agree, however, that further guidance is needed on who is or is not notable, based on some of the AFDs that have occured of late so for mine, expanding MILMOS would make the most sense I feel. Having said all of this, I'm not sure I have the time to contribute much in this regard, so my vote is rather redundant. Sorry. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Outside view: not necessary and too restrictive. WP:BIO is sufficient. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: I fear that the guideline would lead to a rush of stub articles on obscure peacetime brigadier-generals as someone scours the Army Lists for anyone who qualifies and does not have an article. I would prefer guidance on who is not notable - perhaps by saying that rank or awards do not of themselves create notability, and that independent narrative sources are required for notability - not just lists, medal citations or contemporary press coverage. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Nick-D. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose a guideline, though perhaps someone could do an essay from the criteria above. Buckshot06(prof) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:BIO hasn't failed thus far, so why fix it? An essay tailored to military biographies would serve to answer the proposal. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose not needed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let the guidelines present work for now. If a glut appears, bring it up again. This is a can of worms we really do not want to get into unless absolutely essential to the survival of the project. You only need to see the inanity that passes for featured articles in flavor-of-the-day entertainment to see what I mean. Some here-today-gone-tomorrow "star" is permanently ensconced while someone we by our participation in this project hold some value gets told, sorry, no room. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not just to pass along information per se, any more than the purpose of passing along information is an end to itself. It is to pass along values to another generation. Let us not limit ourselves simply because fellow editors have an interest in XYZ in our field instead of ABC. Because that's exactly where this sort of thing goes.Reedmalloy.--65.185.127.109 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A stand-alone guideline certainly is not necessary at the moment. However, I do agree with AustralianRupert that expanding the essay on notability in WP:MILMOS would make the most sense and is all that needs to be done. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Results

It appears that there is presently an insufficient number of supporters to have a project wide guideline for Military biographical article notability. That being said, we have a sizeable number of supporters and a significant amount of work done that could lead to a future guideline, if we can ever reach a consensus on creating it, and/or at present an essay which we could add to WP:MILMOS.

Now the question I pose to all involved is, now what? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just received October's Bugle so only just learnt about this debate! And it's over!!! So, just a few comments, FWIW. What is the problem that needs to be solved here - space running short? Seems like a solution looking for a problem. Judging by much of the above, fixed criteria are likely to cause boundary problems, while case-by-case assessments are likely to open much argument - one nation state's national hero is another's nonentity - perspective was one reason that MILHIST abandoned importance ratings. What if top-level awards are thrown around like confetti for propaganda reasons and it's known that some actions were better recognised than others? We can easily weed out real nonentities that lack support as and when they arrive, or form summary lists when info is short or one-dimensional. Otherwise, we could expend much effort on article trawls and arguments that could be used improving articles. In addition we are in danger of similar efforts on all aspects of military history, eg, is this action in this revolutionary war notable, or this military unit, or that ... whatever. My main criteria has been "Is it interesting (to me) and/or does it illuminate an aspect of something else? That serendipity is the glory of wiki!. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my verbosity, but here's an addendum to the above: the Victoria Cross (UK's top award) for some time was not awarded posthumously. This might apply elsewhere thus eliminating some v notable people, if criteria are very tight. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Me and thee. I have some strong opinions on this. Issues affecting the project must be disseminated in a timely manner to all members.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest that we take this forward as either an addition to WP:MILMOS or as a notability essay (with a note explaining that it was developed by this Wikiproject). There appears to be support for Kirill's suggested wording (though I still think that #5 is unlikely to guarantee that someone will meet WP:BIO), but just not as a new guideline. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should replace the content of WP:MILMOS#NOTE with Kirill's later edit of the proposal. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That certainly merits examining; after all the work you and others have put in on this, I don't think it should be allowed to die away without a proper conclusion (and it'll only come up again). There does seem to be general support for something less formal than a guideline; an essay or MILMOS addition or whatever, so perhaps it might be worth writing that up to allow any late-comers to have their say? We could then maybe spam it round the project via bot, or make an announcement in the next newsletter (which is still some time away). Setting a time limit for closing the discussion, after which the consensus viewpoint will be enacted, might also be helpful. What do you think? EyeSerenetalk 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, my question is the MILMOS a guideline or an essay? If it is in fact a guideline, then that already goes against some editors view here that we should not establish a Military biography guideline regarding notability. However, as presently written what we have created doesn't stop the article from having to meeting WP:NN; so I don't see what the conflict was to begin with. And if it does, then perhaps the compromise is that it should be written to include it, which would satisfy many of the objections to it as it presently stands as of Kirill's last version. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
As the MILMOS page banner states, MILMOS is a guideline and essentially a sub-section of WP:MOS. However, I see your point - on the face of it, some have objected to creating a new guideline but support the addition of an essay to MILMOS (thereby apparently creating a new guideline). However, the relevant section of MILMOS {WP:MILMOS#NOTE) already has a disclaimer that the section is an essay, so technically outside the more formal scope of the rest of the page. Replacing MILMOS#NOTE with Kirill's version, and creating a new header template to make it clear that although it's still an essay it has consensus within the project, would seem to be a logical solution and one that's in line with opinion so far. I have no firm views on whether this needs further discussion; my above was motivated by the additional comments from editors who felt they'd missed the boat. EyeSerenetalk 09:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I like that suggestion. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Since discussion continues, I'll add another two-penn'orth. I really think that hard and fast criteria could be a problem. Under them, a nonentity at a Ministry who happens to be a Brigadier or junior Admiral would qualify, whereas important, interesting or iconic figures might not. Examples: Frederic John Walker (not sure if the DSO was the 2nd ranked award at the time), Rodger Winn, Robert W H Everett, etc, etc. These might qualify under significance, but if so, I suspect that so will many more. So perhaps boost the relevance of significance (and add public prominence - since that will interest readers) and reduce that of rank. On awards, the VC is indisputedly tops in the UK, but in some countries awards are issued in ranks, eg, the Iron Cross and additional, superior degrees were added on top over time - how is this to be assessed? Some awards are awarded not for valour but for merit, why not include these? I'm sure that there are other issues, which is why I have reservations. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Another case: David Irving. I'm sure that he's not "... recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing". Folks at 137 (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
These criteria are those needed to support an assumption that someone is notable on the grounds that sufficient reliable sources are very likely to exist to meet WP:BIO. They don't mean that other people aren't notable regardless of their coverage in reliable sources, so there's no danger that Frederic John Walker and the like won't be considered notable. The problem with reliance on public prominence is that it's hard to define in ways consistent with WP:BIO - if it means the availability of sources then there's both no problem and no need for new guidance, and if it's on the some other criteria then it will be hard to establish a fair method. I agree that reliance on rank is probably the weakest of the proposed criteria - there are no shortage of obscure very senior officers in modern militaries and senior NCOs don't have much prominence outside their service and rarely interest journalists or historians (rightly or wrongly). Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the multiple otherwise non-notable general/flag officers and senior NCOs, I think they'd be similar to some criterea set forth in WP:NMG, in that many bands or musicians are not notable outside their own field/subject, however are considered notable enough within that field/subject to warrant an article. In that sense, although outside of the military subject those general/flag officers and senior NCOs are relatively non-notable, within the subject they are notable, and thus may warrant an article if sufficient verifiable reliable sources can support the notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Any chance that I will receive a response, or does my last post provide sufficient inclusion of those two points which was in question? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that you'd responded. Given that we're not developing a guideline or equivalent, I think that we need to stick very carefully to a conservative interpretation of WP:BIO and limit the guidance to people who we're sure will have received significant coverage in sources which are unrelated to the organisation they're a member of, so senior NCOs are out. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Therefore, what you are proposing is as follows:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

  1. Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour; or
  2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or
  3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents; or
  4. Held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff); or
  5. Played an important role in a significant military event; or
  6. Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat; or
  7. Made a material contribution to military science that is undisputedly attributed to them; or
  8. Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war; or
  9. Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing.
For the purposes of these criteria, a "substantial body of troops" refers to a capital ship, or a division or larger formation, and their historical equivalents. Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable.

and what is being removed is

# Held the position of senior enlisted advisor for a substantial body of troops; or

Do others share this opinion or disagree with this opinion? I for one disagree with the opinion, as I believe that within the scope of their own military organizations that they are notable within their own sub-culture, just as those relatively minor compared to the overall scheme, but important within that subculture listed in WP:NMG are. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's my view. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Mine too, broadly speaking. How I read the current proposal is that we're first saying: significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article. We then go on to say: these are the types of people that will probably (but not always) have this significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. Given that, I think the senior enlisted advisor item is the weakest example, as it's unlikely many will be widely covered in suitable sources. A secondary consideration is that SEA is a US term as far as I'm aware; other nations use different terms and/or have no direct equivalent position. EyeSerenetalk 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Although, I hold differing views than Nick-D, and EyeSerene, it doesn't appear that others don't hold my view. Enlisted personnel can still be notable via WP:GNG; therefore, it looks like, due to others not commenting in support of my view, that the last posting of the change stands. Would anyone disagree with replacing the current content with the most recent edit to the proposal? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a fair summary. No objections here. EyeSerenetalk 09:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Shall I make the change than? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why not. This thread has been open for a month now, so hopefully we can assume that anyone interested in participating will have done so. EyeSerenetalk 08:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have made the change. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks good :) I've made a couple of minor organisational and prose tweaks, but nothing that would change the meaning. What would be nice would be to replace that generic essay template with one more specific; I think it's worth mentioning that, although it's 'only' an essay, it was developed by the project and has consensus within the project. A link from the template to this thread (updated once it's archived) would be useful too. EyeSerenetalk 10:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. To bad that there isn't consensus for it to be elevated to guideline, however, that may come later down the line, and I am patient. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a link to the essay at WP:BIO in the see also section. As soon as this discussion is archived, we should link to this discussion in WP:MILMOS#People. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


Sorry for possibly beating up the dead horse (I did not participate in the above discussion and only came to this page now, after seeing a link to it at WP:BIO), but it seems really strange to me to have an essay, WP:MILMOS#NOTE appear as a section of a guideline. Moreover, the guideline WP:MILMOS is a part of the manual of style, and the latter is traditionally concerned with matters of style and presentation rather than notability. I am basically in agreement with the current text of WP:MILMOS#NOTE, but I would think that it would be better to make WP:MILMOS#NOTE into a separate page, marked as an essay, and have links to that page from WP:MILMOS and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The initial intention was to create a military biography notability guideline; however, failing consensus, a consensus was formed to expand the essay MILMOS#NOTE already located in MILMOS with what has been developed. I don't see a reason why the project cannot separate it into its own page, keeping the old wikilink with it, wherever it goes. However, to do so would require some discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Shenkursk

Hi! Anyone interested in doing a quick review of the Battle of Shenkursk?

Thanks --Zegoma beach (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orders of battle

Hi, following discussion with User:Djmaschek about this issue, I wanted to come here for a wider range of opinion. They have recently created some very nice orders of battle for engagements in the French Revolutionary Wars, but I felt that some of the titles were unclear. On examining a wider selection of titles for orders of battle across the project I found that there is little consistency on titling, with the most common versions being Battle of Foo order of battle or Order of battle at the Battle of Foo. I have always used the latter (following advice from Kirill almost two years ago), but I was wondering a) is there a guideline on this? b) If not, do we need to establish consistency or is this something that can be sensibly left to individual editors to decide case by case? c) Which wording do people think is better and why (this is not a vote, I'm just interested in why people prefer one over the other)?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the naming of these very confusing, and I'd like some guidelines too. I recently created on article on the order of battle at the first battle of Stockach and ran aground on the naming problems in this. The article was renamed at least once, from the one I considered to be intuitively correct, to one that is, I was told, more in line with other "orders of battle" articles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've had the same problem, and I feel that a a guideline certainly would be beneficial. Personally, I prefer using the format of Order of battle at the Battle of Foo over the format Battle of Foo order of battle as I feel that it simply flows and sounds better, but I have not seen any majority or consistency in which one is used. I definitely see a need for a creating a guideline as this is quite unclear and confusing. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
A unique guideline may not be necessary: could the eventual decision be covered by inclusion on the the MILHIST style guide section for atricle names (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Naming conventions)?. I'd agree with Laurinavicius and support Order of battle at the Battle of Foo for the same reasons... the alternate just doesn't read right to me, and when battle disambiguators have to be included (as per Auntieruth55's example: "Battle of Stockach (1799) Order of Battle") it just looks ugly. -- saberwyn 05:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I personally prefer 'battle of X order of battle' - 'order of battle at the battle of X' doesn't sound right to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I think its better as Order of battle at the Battle of Foo and 10th Foo Division order of battle for those articles.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I personally prefer the sound of Battle of xxxx Order of Battle. I like having the name of the conflict/battle/operation at the start of the title rather than at the end, and on occasions when the name of the engagement is a battle (eg. Battle of France, Battle of Britain) it prevents having the word "battle" repeated so closely together. From a really picky point of view, having "Order of Battle" first necessitates different wordings after it (eg. Order of Battle for the Battle of Britain, Order of Battle for Operation Market Garden, Order of Battle in the Spanish Civil War (perhaps)). Having Order of Battle last neatly sidesteps this. Ranger Steve (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with saberwyn that the shorter wording sounds off, even if it does simplify things a bit. Something like "Italian campaign of 1524–1525 order of battle" is a grammatical monstrosity; the reader can probably figure out what it means eventually, but I don't think the order of the words is the expected one there.
(There aren't any rules requiring that article titles be grammatically correct, of course; but I think it's a good thing for them to be so, regardless.) Kirill [talk] [pf] 10:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there could just be a choice of two--Order of Battle etc. and Battle of X - Order of Battle....? That way we could select one of the other, which ever we prefer? And then make them collectible using some kind of category or template parameter? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of guidance, I just named an article Army of the Danube Order of Battle, since it sounded better to me than Order of Battle Army of the Danube. Of course, I could have just put the entire composition of the army into the Army of the Danube article, but that didn't make a lot of sense to me either. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Submarine articles

May I just ask for attention to the contributions here of User:AchimKoerver. I have left a friendly message on his/her talk page, however thought it appropriate to leave one here too. The user adds hidden messages to the sections they add warning users not to edit them:

<!-- --> <!-- Please DO NOT CHANGE the text in this chapter - it is a CITATION FROM ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS --> <!-- If you want to add a correction or a comment, please use the footnotes. Thanks. --> <!-- My sources - Wright or Wrong... --> <!-- -->

As well as having some stylistic things which I have advised him from, and some NPOV and OR statements such as "this obvious breach of International Law" such as "lso S.S. Belgian Prince on 31 July, survivors being lined up on submarines deck and drowned" both from SM U-44. Just for your information, the user has written several articles now - he or she is quite prolific in his writing. SGGH ping! 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I had concerns as well, I actually raised this separately at WT:SHIPS here within five minutes of your post. Benea (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to the sources used? The wording of the hidden comment could indicate possible copyright vio... (just thinking "worst case" here) EyeSerenetalk 23:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't say for sure, but assuming this is what it is represented to be this looks like British intelligence information from World War I (and thus well out of copyright). However, adding it directly to the articles in this format is not appropriate: it violates WP:NPOV for a start, such information was often of only limited accuracy and from the looks of it this transcription seems incomplete. It certainly isn't good prose. It does look at this point as if this is a good faith user however, and with a bit of explanation and guidance they could be an asset to the project. --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
it looks like it might also violate OR, if the material isn't published, or accessible in some way. Plus there is always the prose issue. AND although it might not be a copyright vio, it isn't a good idea to transport text verbatim either. Better to paraphrase and contextualize it. And there is also the apparent ownership issue. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
If they are copyvio, it's a biggie, 'cause he looks like to be using a cut & paste; a lot of pages have little more than the names changed. On the plagiarism issue, presuming it's a verbatim lift, that's broader than just AchimKoerver, since many of the USN ship pages are verbatim lifts from DANFS. (And, yes, this is an issue I've complained about before, to no avail.) Don Bolan I'll get to it, Leo 00:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
well perhaps he thinks that by citing the source in the header (where did that idea come from), s/he's avoided the plagiarism thing. I'm having a hard time resisting a little tinker with the text, just to see what the reaction would be. My-bad. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
DANFS is public domain, you are not going to win that battle, plus the entries are modified to be less POV-pushing, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/DANFS conversions -MBK004 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
"DANFS is public domain" That's the same bullshit argument I've been hearing all along. All it means is the publisher can't (won't) sue you, not that it's not plagairism. Wrong, I fear, is still wrong. (And yeah, adding the "DANFS" tag is all most are bothering to do. Lazy.) If there's less "POV-pushing" in them, I haven't seen it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Estow the tune of DANFS, Gentlemen, there will be time to handle that issue later. The problem right now is that this behavior can not be allowed to stand. Whether they are copyvio's or plagerized does not change the fact that we have WP:OWN issues here, and if this problem is not managed quickly NOW then its going to create problems for us down the road. We need to:

  • Remind the editor that no one owns any pages here,
  • mark the pages as possible copyvios,
  • remove the hidden messages, and
  • Look into how many page may be effected.

If the user in question decides to join us and contribute in a manner consistent with all established guidlines and policies then so be it, if not then we may need to consider blocking the account. For now, lets get to work on the above points. 76.211.107.188 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing to both defend copyvio, & contradict myself, may I suggest not being too hasty? First, let's establish there is a copyvio? Probababilities & appearances do not guilt make, so posting copyvio warnings may be premature. That said, I fully agree, remind on own & remove the hidden msgs. As to #pp affected, it appears to me all the sub pages posted are, in 1 degree/another, since they seem to be boilerplated, with details changed as needed. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hence the "possible". As both you and MBK have pointed out, there is disagreement over DANFS material and its status for use here, and there is more than one way to mark a page as a copyvio. A simple listing of articles here that have the hidden messages would suffice for now until we can locate the sources used in the articles. 76.211.107.188 (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. I have received an email from the user asking me to explain my actions. He lists some issues of perceived political bias on Wikipedia, but in all his hasn't been offensive or anything (I shall reproduce the email if so required). I have replied in a friendly manner and explained my actions. I believe he has also emailed one User:Brad101 (a user I don't believe I have met before) asking for clarification. I shall summarise my reply as follows: I didn't change his introduction because it was subjective nonsense as I accused me, but because it was a summary of the entire war not a WP:LEAD of the article. I did tag a couple of controversial statements with citation needed tags. I did not "manipulate" his footnote, merely placed it outside of a section heading. I did not censor the article. I do not have "Hitler-friendly" views as he stated to me in his email. I appreciate him taking the time to email me, and advise him to contact a second admin to review all our actions if required. I informed him I would reproduce his email (with his email address censored for privacy) if required to by any 3rd party.
That's a summary of the email. As I said, I can reproduce it in its eternity if required. The IP address above made the following suggestions, and I have added on my actions thus far:
  • Remind the editor that no one owns any pages here, (I have done so on his talk page)
  • mark the pages as possible copyvios, (I will leave that to someone familiar with the source as per concensus)
  • remove the hidden messages, (I have removed one from the article I first found, which I trimmed down overall and changed to fit guidelines as I interpret them, and I have removed the hidden message only from one other.)
  • Look into how many page may be effected. (I believe a list of his contributions may help here.)
Thank you for your assistance thus far, I shall be here for any questions on my actions thus far. Cheers. SGGH ping! 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
How did he get "Hitler-friendly"? These are World War I submarines!--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that struck me as odd. SGGH ping! 14:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat tricky. The user in question reprinted two volumes of a post-WWI account of British naval intelligence by Birch and Clarke, both of whom served in Room 40. Quite apart from the bias one might expect in a work of this nature, and a certain level of inaccuracy, there is also published evidence that in certain places Clarke lied outright to sully a naval officer's name. I was in touch with Herr Koerver over the summer to draw his attention to this fact. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 14:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have received another email apologising for earlier hostility. The user writes that he has read up on policy and is happy to nuance his articles to reflect it. I've given him some final points of stylistic advice and also reminded him to remove the hidden warnings. Hopefully these will be put into effect and all's-well-that-ends-well. SGGH ping! 16:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That seems hopeful, it sounds like you're resolving this in the best way possible. Nice work :) Obviously we'll need to keep an eye on things for a while, but there are plenty of experienced editors (and admins if necessary) around these pages to help out. However, I still think we need to be clear about the provenance of the information they've been adding, which sounds from Simon Harley's post that it might be more of a plagiarism than a copyright issue; equally unacceptable, but for ethical rather than legal reasons. It's all part of the learning curve though... EyeSerenetalk 17:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • ...congratulations may be premature. From what I've seen of the editor's contribution history, he may not understand the problem. He seems to think that an original source must be cited in its entirety, and doesn't need footnotes, that it cannot be broken into smaller cites (as evidence used in specific instances, combined with other material, and so on). These seem to be dated after the SGGH conversation (he attributes the edits to SGGH guidance), but there isn't much difference that I can see....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) I suppose the question to ask is whether there are any RS secondary sources for these U-Boats? If so, they can be added and the primary stuff deleted or edited as required. If there isn't, then it might be more troublesome. Skinny87 (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a touch better in the obvious copy-pasting (compare this & this). It looks to me like inadequate grasp of method of citation more than intent to copyvio, but maybe I'm being too generous. There seems to be an effort to get the pages in line (his contributions page is showing extensive revision efforts), but citation is still weak. As to RS, this appears to be reproducing original docs, which might confirm some of the uncited stuff. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:51 & 15:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you were aware or not, but that link you gave is related to the user judging from the email address he originally emailed me from. SGGH ping! 17:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Based on the similarities of the names of the user and the author of that website, there may be a conflict of interest going on, too. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Not aware of any connection. I'm judging on the docs alone. Are they authentic/not? If yes, I'm not clear if COI makes a diff; they could be obtained from Kew by anybody, no? (Admitted, not expert on COI...) That said, I'll leave the new ish to others & suggest our Brit cousins have a look & see if they can authenticate locally (or by permission to the Archives site, which I don't have...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is a doubt that that they aren't authentic. You can easily find them in the National Archives cataglogue and they are available to purchase (caveat I haven't actually compared what's in the archives to what's on http://germannavalwarfare.info) but if it is a hoax it's an elaborate one. I wonder if AchimKoerver's attitude about changing any of thw wording comes from the NA copyright rules here http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/legal/copyright.htm e.g. the bit about "material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context". I don't see COI or OR as issues here if all he has done is reproduce the text of historical documents
Also I think AchimKoerver should be cut a little slack here. On any of the articles he's created he's been very careful not to claim that these documents are correct about the movements of each U-boat but are the operations as known to British intelligence. If those need a health warning because either British intelligence was wrong or the author of those documents had reasons for faking records then that can/does need to be addressed (and it might be that topic forms an article in itself?) but I don't see a reason for discounting the information at the moment especially in the absence of anything that can be considered more accurate e.g. log books, German naval records. NtheP (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
For myself, I certainly hadn't considered the material was deliberately inaccurate, beyond the POV of the original source anyway. I think as long as there's no copyvio, the editor is engaged productively with others, and they're working to our verifiability and neutrality policies (even if the material is hosted on their own site, the articles I've looked over seem neutrally written), there's nothing much to worry about. EyeSerenetalk 11:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
(od) The editor is now re-writing the articles to remove their comment and clarify the sourcing (eg, in edits such as [1] this). I think that British wartime intelligence files are very bad sources given that secondary works using German records have long been available, but until someone comes along to use these sources to redevelop the articles it's pretty inoffensive behavior as at least they're adding some content, even if it is patchy and contains inaccuracies. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
"Authentic" maybe not the best word; do they accurately represent the content? (They evidently do.) Is a "health warning" needed? For inaccuracy, perhaps, but I'd argue no more than any wartime doc (incompleteness & rush, if no other reason); Rm40 would be doing it's damndedst to get it right, 'cause they're providing info to A/S (ASW...) forces trying to sink U-boats. Same applies to falsification; these are internal intel docs, not for public release. Ineed, some of the public release docs are more suspect; USN WW2, for instance, made many false (public) claims of U-boat sinkings in the "Happy Time" period, for reasons of morale (not to mention prestige). And yeh, there might be an article (or section, for sure) on the falstiy of public statements. Propaganda in wartime? I agree with Nick-D, it looks like a misunderstanding of process to some degree, & overuse of blanket pasting, & AchimKoerver certainly seems to have the right attitude about fixing it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
As a side, perhaps that these edits would be better at WikiSource? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. Just dropping a note off here to say that I assessed these as start-class, but if they are reduced in length and tidied up (some of them copy the same introductory text about WW1 submarine warfare), the assessment may need to drop back to stub. On looking at them more closely, I share some of the concerns expressed above, and feel I should have edited the articles rather than assessed them (or done both), but there are rather a lot of them (about 20-30 so far that I can see). I had presumed that the German records were not available, but from the above it seems they are, and those should definitely be added. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Just call me if you have problems acquiring these German sources or need some translation. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I may have spoken too soon. This & this suggest an inability to recognize a citation needn't quote from the source entire, nor retain original formatting. I'm disinclined to suffer reversion... I did leave a note on his talk, where I see previous cmt in the same vein. Maybe just inexperience? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe not...judging by this. :( For which I tried leaving a friendly note (on top of TheWeakWilled's warning). For the effort AchimKoerver's put in, it'd be a real shame to see him blocked. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
More bad news. It appears from this AchimKoerver prefers to quit WP & delete all the pages he's put up... (I did try & encourage him to stay.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears that he did make a "last stand" in trying to get "his" articles to appear the way he wanted yesterday in addition to just on U-71 (there were about 15 treated in the similar way but were not blanked when he was reverted), of which I have just reverted a great deal of, but some further examination of his recent contributions would be appreciated. This truly is a mess... and while it is sad we are apparently losing an editor who knows a great deal about the subject, they simply do not understand why their actions are wrong per our policies. -MBK004 05:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks like there's some ignorance, based on his talk comments; how much of that is willful & how much is an unwillingness to admit error (which of us does that well? :) ), is unclear. (I dislike seeing anybody quit here, esp over a fixable problem. {Vandals I'd ban on a 1st offence, but that's another ish entire. ;p}) OTOH, if the docs here are reliable (& they seem to be his main source), it's not a dead loss. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
From the interactions I've had with the user, and the evidence here, it just strikes me as a user who has not yet made the transition from history work to Wikipedia writing. SGGH ping! 11:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I've left another message at his talk trying to use myself as an example of how he'll need to use Wikipedia as Wikipedia, and not as a history book or journal. SGGH ping! 12:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I ended up looking into this situation from a tangent while looking at something else only slightly related (but not related to Achim). For the past few days, I've been going through all the contributions of Achim, so I can get a grasp on the nature of the controversy, and I did not know until today that this long discussion even existed (thanks to SGGH for pointing it out to me). I believe some of the above was a misunderstanding. If you will all look at the SM U-92 article, you will see a new way that Achim is presenting the data so as to, show the actual source document in an image, which makes clear that what he is providing is simply a strict transcription of that image. I believe that that, not OWN is why he placed the particular hidden message. Not to claim ownership but merely to point out that *what follows* is a transcription. In a few cases, he tried to enquote the material to make this even more clear, but that enquoting was reverted. Enquoting or <blockquote>ing might be another way to make that more clear to a casual reader. Achim's primary language is not English and so the way he expresses himself is not that clear. His use of the word "citation" for example I believe means "quotation". At any rate, I have been working with him a bit to try to resolve this.Wjhonson (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the issue goes beyond misunderstanding of "citation" or "quotation". This suggests any change to what he's written will be reverted. And, for myself, I find posting the actual docs a "See, I'm right'. As noted on Wjhonson's talk, AFAIK, nobody's questioning their existence or authenticity, nor the accuracy of the transcription, only the attitude over changes with no impact on the factual content. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
When you are providing a verbatim transcription, you should stick to only and exactly what it states. That's my opinion. And enquote the entire block you're transcribing to make that clear. Any notes or amendments can still be added before or after that transcribed block right? That's how I'd do it, in this same situation. The posting of the doc images was partly my suggestion so it could be made clear to the casual reader that the block of text is actually a transcription.Wjhonson (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. If I'm quoting verbatim then typos and all it all goes in with notes afterwards. I think it's coming down to a matter of style. If the section started 'Room 40 recorded the misions as . . .' then I'd <blockquote/enquote>. If it started 'Room 40 recorded the missions and they can be summarised as . . .' then as long as the data is accurately summarised, the format, spelling etc can be varied from the original. Reproducing the documents in full is maybe not the way I'd have written the section as it's quite a considerable part of each article but I can understand why it was done that way and can now appreciate the 'warning' given, clumsy as it might appear to those of us where English is our first language. NtheP (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I've no quarrel with blockquotes including every spelling error in the original. (I dislike blockquotes for appearance reasons, but that's another kettle of fish...) What I don't see here is the need to quote entire. (As noted elsewhere, some docs should be quoted entire, & some famous or imporant quotes, ditto. Can you imagine describing FDR's call for war 8 Dec, "Yesterday, the Japanese attacked"? 8o ) Here, provided the factual information is preserved, isn't a less "listish" page a better one? Compare this to this. The second preserves the information, & IMO is a better page. This isn't out of line (& I wouldn't stong oppose, but mislike); IMO, with the duplication, somebody's bound to del Achim's quoted text anyhow, sooner or later (probably sooner), so we've solved very little. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I get the sense that he is trying to create an online digitised version of the National Archives holdings on these submarines (well that may not be his intention but it seems it will be the outcome). He is continually insisting that the verbatim transcripts be retained, and left unedited, but now as a semi-compromise the version at SM U-79 has been proposed, which is half actual researched article along wikipedia guidelines, half a text dump from the archives. If he cannot be encouraged to actually write articles using his own words rather than the century-old words of British Intelligence, can he not be persuaded to try wikisource instead, which would seem to be the perfect place for this? Still retaining this uneditable, unformatted, at times misleading and incorrect source which at best just repeats what is in the actual article, and at worst confuses readers with inconsistencies seems flawed, and a sop to this author. Benea (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I've only given this exchange a cursory examination, but it seems to me that [2] is the place for this info; links could be added to the relevant pages. Overwhelming articles with primary sources is certainly not allowed, but it would be a pity to ditch the work all the same.Dduff442 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

<--I'm getting tired of this. Does anybody think this & this doesn't look like WP:OWN? Same content, only formatting changes, gets reverted. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We do not have a requirement to write articles using our own words, in fact the best practices are articles which are partly secondary, partly primary, and partly smoothing that transition using our own words. I don't think we need to needlessly annoy a user who is in the process of contributing so much material, so disputing on this and bringing up policy issues isn't a good plan to move forward. I've suggested the version at SM U-79 as an intermediate method to move forward. I would expect that the prose portion could be expanded tremendously over time. All new articles look a bit odd when they are new, that doesn't worry me. Hopefully all parties can find a way to work together here, that's the goal. The article I pointed at is a compromise position.Wjhonson (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. please look at the user's responses on his talk about this. You can see that he is attempting, as am I, to find a compromise position where all parties will be somewhat happy. Hopefully we can let these articles develop over the next few weeks or so and see what they look like again, once the editing simmers down a bit.Wjhonson (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. Trek I know that here you were simply trying to undo the wordiness but your revert also removed the images. I don't think that's what you intended. The first section, which right now simply repeats the transcription is Achim's olive branch to allow you to rewrite it in a prose form. That's why it's there. Unless you no longer are interested in that kind of work.Wjhonson (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] article Kassel-Rothwestern Airfield needs to be moved

I am just a visitor in the English Wikipedia, but living in Kassel I know the place and so I noticed that it was mispelled. I have corrected the text but do not know how to move the article, which should correctly be named Kassel-Rothwesten Airfield. Could somebody do this? UtaHae (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There we are, moved it for you! Skinny87 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help Me

Who was the winner and loser of the Indonesian National Revolution? Could someone add the belligerents to the article? B-Machine (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia was the victor as it secured its independence, and the Netherlands was the main loser of the war, although the United Kingdom was also a loser for having sided with and fought alongside the Dutch. There's an infobox on the article's talk page that contains most of this information, so that should be added into the article, as it was removed several years back. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merge discussion

There is a proposition to merge Armed forces to Military at Talk:Armed Forces#merge discussion. username 1 (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, but unfortunately the discussion has already been closed (as no consensus). It's an interesting discussion point though :) EyeSerenetalk 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Closed moments ago. Re-proposing since discussion was never until recently announced properly it should be disregarded. username 1 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
"It's dead, Jim." It's been open since March, 2009, with Merge tags on both article - that's all thet is "required". Just let it go. - BilCat (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Task Force discussion

What ever happened to that? Looks like the Bot archived it automatically, due to lack of discussion. What had consensus, and what still needed to be discussed? Perhaps we need to carry through those that had consensus, and continue discussion those that were still being debated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I thought I'd unarchived the discussion just the other day. I'll do it again, but I think you're right that some closures can be made. EyeSerenetalk 08:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Book-class

Since this is one of the bigger projects, and that quite several Wikipedia-Books are Milhist-related, could the Milhist project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as Milhist people can oversee books much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week's Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this. I suspect that many of the milhist books can be/would be tagged by their creators anyway, so it wouldn't require, much, if any, work. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Lemme know if you have questions/feedback. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I feel that this is a great idea, especially seeing as it would, as Ed has already said, require little, if any, work. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It does seem easy enough to change the template, and it certainly wouldn't hurt anything. – Joe N 01:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This would be good, since this project does a lot of clusters -- submarines, pilots, that sort of thing. I was considering collecting the Cologne War articles into a book at some point. If they are ever done. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Note that a quick and easy way to create a book is to take a good/featured topic, or a category and simply arrange the articles in a coherent way. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This should be easy enough to add; if there are no objections, I'll do it sometime in the next day or two. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Good suggestion, I think it's well worth implementing. EyeSerenetalk 17:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Any updates? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's done, I think; please let me know if anything is broken after the updates.
(I'm not particularly happy about the fact that books are in the project namespace; dealing with them would be considerably simpler if they had their own.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well there's a proposal on the Village Pump to create a book namespace. That would probably simplify things. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Everything is working as intended Kirill. I'll go ahead and populate the category by tagging all of the books that have been created from our Featured and Good Topics. -MBK004 02:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it should be book-class, and not BK-class. See message at Template_talk:WPMILHIST#Book-class. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Replied there. The template accepts all of the standard class names, FWIW. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hogenberg Kupferstich for Featured Picture-- needs help

For anyone who is interested, the Siege of Godesberg Kupferstich by Frans Hogenberg is strugging at Featured Picture status here and could use some support. It's not of the digital quality the usual suspects want, and some are having trouble seeing past the digital fuzzies to its historical importance. Any assistance or advice would be appreciated. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee election

Several members of this wikiproject are standing in the current Arbitration Committee election. Editors are encouraged to review all candidate statements available via Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009 and vote for or against the candidates for this important role. For editors who are not familiar with ArbCom, it is the highest level of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process (other than very rare interventions by Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales) and plays an important role in settling long-running or complex disputes and managing several governance issues. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help need on Johann von Ravenstein

I have a question on how to put an image from Wikimedia on the article Johann von Ravenstein. The picture on Wikimedia (of the person von Ravenstein) and another picture (of the town Ravenstein or something) on the English Wiki share the same filename both called Ravenstein.jpg. How do I reference the correct picture of Ravenstein? I can't get it to work and I couldn't find a clue on the help pages either. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the en.wiki image to File:Ravenstein street.jpg and deleted the redirect, so it should work now. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that did the trick. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles on Lt. Generals. from WP:WPAFC

Greetings from your friends over at Articles for Creation. We've had SIX submissions these past few days that would be right up y'alls alley. They're already in mainspace and ready to be improved- but by someone that actually knows something about the military.

Stanley Dunbar Embick
Daniel Van Voorhis
Albert Jesse Bowley, Sr.
Charles D. Herron
Stanley H. Ford
Herbert J. Brees

Thanks for anything y'all can do to improve them! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Italian battleship Roma (1940) now open

The A-Class review for Italian battleship Roma (1940) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Partner peer review for Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir now open

The peer review for Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! — Vantine84 (t – c) 06:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'Nazi Germany' or 'Germany' on the World War II article

There's currently a discussion at Talk:World War II about whether the article should refer to Germany as either 'Germany' or 'Nazi Germany'. Interested editors are encouraged to provide their views in this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] James Symonds

This U.S. navy officer's only claim to fame is some involvement in Ronald Reagan's funeral. Does this really make him notable in wikipedia terms? Seeking others' input on whether this should be AfD'd. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of what's in the article now, no. The non-US Navy references only really mention him in passing. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Notable. He's a flag officer. He commanded a large and important ship. He had a small role in a notable event. And if he gets promoted again, we'll look like real dills for deleting the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of war heroes

I would invite all of you to please enter the discussion regarding awardees of high-level commendations for valor on the WP:N page. It is my assertation that winners of the MoH, DSC, and SS (and their deeds), should be considered notable in of themselves. WP:BIO already lists a set of guidelines for notability that includes such figures as professional sports players, Olympians, actors, professors, and Playboy Playmates as being notable. I believe that our war heroes should be considered no less so. Rapier1 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about the highest awards (such as the VC) you have (perhaps) a point. But I would be very warey of such a list (for example is Sep Detrich a war hero?). Moreover how do you rate heroes from organisations that do not have medals, but who perform acts of bravery in combat (or even from before the wide scale issuing of medals? What about medals awarded for service but not for bravery (such as the Gongresional medal of honour)? What about civilain medals (such as the George Cross, an award for bravery.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about the Medal of Honor, sometimes mistakenly called the Congressional Medal of Honor, that is the highest decoration that the United States military can award, and is the United States equivalent of the Victoria Cross. Rapier1 (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Except the CMH can be given to civilans, the VC cannot, nor can the VC be given unless the act of bravery was under enemy fire, so again a differance. In this respect rthe CMH is closer to the GC. This is one reaso I am not sure about this, not all medals are recived (or can be given) for the same reasons. For example is Charles Lindburg a war hero?Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
This project has recently developed a notability essay for military people which can be seen at WP:MILMOS#People and covers the kind of awards which can be assumed to mean that people awarded them automatically meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This raiseas point, the George Cross is n ot (strickley) the UK's second highest award, its then highest award made to civilians and solders whos acts wer not under enamey fire.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hero is almost by definition subjective. Sep Dietrich was a hero in his context. In another context, he was a war criminal. He is certainly a notable military figure. If I understand it correctly, the discussion has been to try to create criteria to achieve a more objective approach to encyclopaedic notability. At the same time, we can't lose the celebrity context altogether - how people were perceived within their culture or among their peers and how that affects their future life is potentially significant in its own right.Monstrelet (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps all this discussion occuer in one location? As, a great majority appears to be happening here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually the VC can be awarded to civilians if under military command (there are I think some examples during the Indian Mutiny, and possibly even Rorje's Drift - comissaries were not strcitly speaking military at that time I believe). The George Cross is essentially equal in status to the VC, the Ministry of Defence refers to both as "Level One" awards. This all really boils down to the availability of relaiable sources. For the VC and GC, and I assume for other nation's "equivalent" award, we say that recipients are automatically notable since many books etc have been devoted to writing about the recipietns, the acts taht won them the medal, and their wider biography. In general such detailed sources do not exist for recipients of lower level decorations, despite their heroism, there are simply too many of them. Some individual recipients may have sufficient sources, but these will often relate to some other aspect of thier life that makes them notable in Wikipedia terms. David Underdown (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Johann von Klenau now open

The A-Class review for Johann von Klenau is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability and FPC

In late October the Library of Congress research librarians confirmed Roger Davies's correction for the identity of a British field marshal. More recently their staff confirmed Monstrelet's identification of a crashed German biplane as an Albatross D.III (plus a few other identifications by Eurocopter, Monstrelet, and myself). Unfortunately it is taking longer than the projected three weeks for these corrections to go live on the LoC website. I have emails from LoC personnel to confirm the updates. Have asked the featured picture community for an opinion whether to continue waiting for the Library of Congress site to update, or to move forward with featured picture updates and candidacies on the strength of the research librarians' emails. Discussion is underway at Wikipedia_talk:FPC#Verifiability_and_FPC. Durova371 19:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Additional opinion request

I have tagged certain portions of the article Eric Shinseki since September 2009 with clean up templates relating to WP:NEU, and recently WP:COATRACK. On the talk page section I have received zero comments regarding my opinion of the sections. On the article Helen Thomas, after some time, I removed the section that appeared to be coatrack related, and it actually improved the article by reducing the amount of POV related edits to it. Since it has been several months since this section was tagged, would I be right to remove the content in question? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Disregard, I have decided to be bold and delete the content. If anyone disagrees I am sure they can always revert the edit, and discuss the reversion on the talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Vernon Sturdee now open

The A-Class review for Vernon Sturdee is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 22:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for James Whiteside McCay now open

The A-Class review for James Whiteside McCay is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 23:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidacy for Cleomenean War now open

The featured article candidacy for Cleomenean War is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom election reminder: voting closes 14 December

Dear colleagues

This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.

On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Here's A Question

The Tuareg Rebellion from 2007 to 2009 ended in 2009, yet the article (Tuareg Rebellion (2007–present) has the word present in the title. Should the article name be changed to reflect the ending of the war in 2009? B-Machine (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this would seem sensible. I take it there's no dispute that it's ended? Shimgray | talk | 17:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
From what I see, the conflict ended earlier this year. B-Machine (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've left a note there asking for thoughts, and if that doesn't gain any opposition in the next week I'll move it. Shimgray | talk | 18:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Killed in Action

We have several categories for Army personnel 'killed in action'. I was never sure where to fit David Bedell-Sivright as he died during the First World War, but it was via an illness brought on by an insect bite. So he died during the conflict, and would not have died if he had not been dragged to the Turkish front, but 'killed in action'? Could you verify if anyone who dies while serving in a war (training accident, disease, heart attack in the mess) should be categorised as killed in action or not. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Killed in action" refers specifically to people who die because of someone actively trying to kill them, to put it succinctly! "Died of wounds" is used to refer to those who die some time afterwards (in hospital, etc) as a result; the third category, of people who die as a result of being in the military but not because of someone trying to kill them, is usually recorded as "died on active service" or something similar. I'm not sure specifically how our categories are used... I note that many of them are "killed in [X war]", which confuses matters a little. Shimgray | talk | 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Thomas Baker (aviator) now open

The A-Class review for Thomas Baker (aviator) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidacy for Frederick Scherger now open

The featured article candidacy for Frederick Scherger is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Clancy franchise books

FYI, a bunch of Tom Clancy franchise novels have come up for renaming, see WP:RM for December 6th. These are military fiction and espionage fiction novels. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Fryatt

The Charles Fryatt article, previously a copyvio, has been deleted and rewritten from scratch. As such, it now needs (re)assessment. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you've gone ahead and done it; strictly speaking it's probably best not to assess your own work, but I've got no argument with your conclusion. Nice article :) EyeSerenetalk 12:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review for Henry Wrigley now open

The A-Class review for Henry Wrigley is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history"