Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The June newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan • Benjamin Jackson (sailor) • Battle of Tinian Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Boot Monument • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • Lockheed YF-22 Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Military logistics • Brighton hotel bombing • Military dictatorship Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • John S. McCain Sr. • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Giado concentration camp • The Motherland Calls • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Malin massacre • Monument to the uprising of the people of Kordun and Banija • Ehengbuda • Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023 Israeli invasion of Gaza • Amazon-class frigate (1795) • Operation Matterhorn logistics • Advanced Tactical Fighter Good article reassessments Franklin's lost expedition • Justinian I • Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division • Joe Rice • Gettysburg Cyclorama • Kowloon Walled City Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,698) • only work on referencing and citation (43,175) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,863) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,724) • work on structure (31,818) • only work on structure (359) • work on grammar (8,173) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,804) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (3) • assessment as lists (125) • project tags fixed (4) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (2) • task forces added (288) • attention to task force coverage (656)

Captain Ralph.E. Goranson

Ralph was captain of able charlie company of 2nd rangers. He and his company were first to land on normandy at H hours. His history is depicted notably under Popular film Saving private ryan as captain miller. We need to work on this article. Dr meetsingh  Talk  07:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Before you start an article on him, please check that there are sufficient sources covering his life to meet the relevant notability policy, WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, i have gone through various notabilty guidelines and found the article on captain Goranson is possible in wikipedia.

1. He has recieved Distinguished Service Cross (United States) which is 2nd highest decoration and purple heart recipient [1].

2. He has comanded charlie company of 2nd rangers. His company along with other companies of rangers were first to land on Normandy during H-hours. Under his command rangers were able to make to the cliffs. Notability of the events can be searched on google.

3. His heroism is depicted under American film saving private ryan as captain miller. So we must take a initiative to create this article. Dr meetsingh  Talk  12:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he meets WP:SOLDIER. He did not receive the DCS multiple times; his command topped out at company level; "Private Ryan" is a fictional character based loosely on Frederick "Fritz" Niland. If memory serves, Fritz Niland was never separated from his company. The section mentioning Goranson in Saving Private Ryan is flagged as original research. Google results equating Miller and Goranson seem to be mostly blogs/non-edited items.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on the above, I agree. Dr meetsingh, please read WP:BIO: notability is determined by the availability of independent reliable sources on individuals and the depth of coverage they provide on them. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur - as far as I can tell, Goranson is mentioned fairly frequently in books on the Normandy invasion, but generally without any other details. WP:BIO1E seems to apply here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

HMS Cornwall 1941

Action of 8 May 1941 Did it carry Walrus spotter aircraft? Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. See Forcyzk, Robert; Palmer, Ian (2010). German Commerce Raider vs British Cruiser: The Atlantic & The Pacific 1941. Osprey. p. 58. ISBN 978-1846039188. Preview available on Google Books. Nthep (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Keith-264 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox military person

Please see Talk:Audie Murphy#Purple_Heart. The comment there is referring to how the Purple Heart and Presidential Unit Citation are listed in the infobox. Article content seems to be OK on this. Can anyone suggest a better way of listing these medals in the infobox? — Maile (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The infobox makes no mention of bravery. That section is titled 'Awards'. I see no issue here for discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Women in the Civil War" edit-a-thon at NARA

Hi everyone! Wikimedia DC and the National Archives will be holding a "Women in the Civil War" edit-a-thon next week, and we're looking for help with putting together a list of articles for attendees to edit. If you know of any articles that (a) would fit with the topic and (b) could be improved by a group of not-very-experienced editors, please add them to the list here.

If anyone is in the area and would like to attend the event—or participate online—that would also be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Northern Ireland, 1968–98 a colonial conflict?

See discussion at Template talk:British colonial campaigns. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nodegoat's Geography of Violence map

May be of interest, from BBC News Magazine an article on Dutch company Nodegoat's Geography of Violence map: The map trying to record every battle ever fought. It uses data from Wikipedia (with some fine-tuning still needed for its algorithm, clearly). The site itself is at http://battles.nodegoat.net/viewer.p/23/385/scenario/1/geo/fullscreen. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

East African Campaign (World War II)

East African Campaign (World War II) I've been working my way through the sections to make them succinct and then expand the linked articles but the sources I have are sketchy about Italian details and tend to leave the rightful owners of East Africa as anonymous extras. Can anyone suggest sources that don't? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Michela Wrong's book on Eritrea I Didn't Do it For You isn't about World War II, but has some good details on the Italian colonial regime and fighting there with a focus on how it affected Eritreans. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideology of the SS

This article has proved to be a challenge and very contentious. Although it originally passed GA review back in October, 2015, it has needed some further work since that time. Part of the problem were the contributions of an editor who is now topic blocked. Much of that was dealt with since that time and further tweaks were being done with the involvement of the GA reviewer. Now, the article for the most part is being "nuked" by several editors. It has also been mentioned on the talk page that the article should be deleted at this point. I would ask that several editors from this section have a look at the article with a critical but objective eye. If kept, the goal being for objective presentation with good RS cites; from a NPOV point-of-view. Kierzek (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Any talk of deletion is silly. If anything, simply restore it back to the point when it was given GA status. This would wash any and all questionable edits by the now topic-banned editor, and any others, and simply leave behind a Good Article. - ^theWOLFchild 13:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not that easy because the editor in question was topic banned after this article was GA passed; and I don't believe it should go back to that point. The fact is, it needed some further work. If it was going to be "restored" to a point, it should be yesterday; with tweaks being done from that point in time. If kept, the article will need reassessment as to its GA status after the dust has settled. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was under the impression that it reached GA, then all the problems came afterward. I guess I should've taken a closer look. - ^theWOLFchild 18:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a discussion ongoing about this at Talk:Ideology of the SS#Problematic content. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It has already been listed at: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, as well. Kierzek (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Successor to the UK Trident system - name/split?

There's been a bit of warring over the name of Successor to the UK Trident system. My view is that the problem stems from the fact that it's really two articles that were set up as one because at the time it wasn't known how the UK's deterrent would look in future. Since the last election, it seems near-certain that the UK will put existing Trident missiles in 4 submarines of a new class, that goes by the working name of the Successor-class submarine. Thus I think the time has come to do the same as happened with the previous generation of CASD, split out the politics from the ship-class article like Trident nuclear programme and Vanguard-class submarine. For me the only question is whether there's enough material on the politics to justify a new politics article or whether it can just be merged in to Trident nuclear programme. I've a mild preference for merging politics rather than standalone, but I'm not really bothered either way. Can we have some more eyes over at Talk:Successor_to_the_UK_Trident_system#Requested_move_1_March_2016? The article itself could always use some work given that it's such a political hot potato at the moment, views have quadrupled in recent months.Le Deluge (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

WWII content: Otto Kittel, more

Following up on the SS Ideology article discussion above, I would like to ask for community's input on another GA article: Otto Kittel.

The editing on the article has proven to be contentious (see the multi-part discussion on the Talk page), so I followed up be reaching out to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: Franz Kurowski for a GA Article (also in multiple parts). This is also a long thread; in summary:

• 4 editors deemed Kurowski non WP:RS (including myself)
• 1 editor deemed it WP:BIASED, but okay to use for "broad outlines of who was involved and what equipment was used in which battles and where", as potentially an only source available on the subject
• 1 editor (the article's editor) deemed it WP:RS.

I would welcome your review of the article and the RSN discussion with an objective eye, and rendering your opinion. Suggestions on how to proceed would also be welcome.

Separately, the recent RfA (that caused the fallout in the SS ideology article) also raised issues about the current state of GA/FA articles for me. I've found some of the MilHist GA/FA articles flawed, such as the already mentioned Otto Kittel and Ideology of the SS. The latter is on the way to being delisted; pls see GA reassessment. Other problematic (in my opinion) FA/GA articles are:

• Erich Hartmann – sources include:
  • what appears to be a coffee-table book by Philip Kaplan Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe in World War WWII – 18 citations
  • Insidiously titled book by Toliver, Raymond F.; Constable, Trevor J. (1986). The Blond Knight of Germany. – 20 citations
• Heinrich Bär – 26 citations to Franz Kurowski
• Horst Wessel – see discussion on the Talk page: PoV Problems

From The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser & Davies: The Blond Knight of Germany is a "hallmark of romanization", with its "insidious" title suggesting medieval chivalry that "not only fails to characterize the conduct of the German Army in the East, but, indeed, marks its opposite".

References

If you are up for a read, I've compiled a list of various instances of myths, legends, POV language and dubious claims. Many of these are unintentionally hilarious, so you may get a laugh:

• Alternate History Department
• Dubious unsourced claims & POV language

As the result of seeing this phenomenon, I rewrote the HIAG article, discussing the post-war lobbying and apologia by former Waffen-SS officers. There's where a lot of my research comes from, including the Revisionist tradition outside of HIAG.

I would like community's input on how best to deal with these issues, and what can be done at the MILHIST level, if that is possible. Please let me know your input and guidance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

In light of the way some articles have managed to slip thru the GA/FA process even they have some very questionable content, this is certainly a worthwhile request. The last thing we need in any Wikipedia article, especially when GA/FA, is Nazi glorification, pushing of a pro-Fascist POV or making light of the Holocaust. If we could have some extra eyes here take a quick look at some of these articles;

• Otto Kittel
• Ideology of the SS
• Erich Hartmann
• Heinrich Bär
• Horst Wessel

Thank you K.E. for bringing this to our attention and thanks in advance to anyone here who helps out. - ^theWOLFchild 10:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This individual, K.e.coffman, has been canvassing several Wikipedia noticeboards in what appears to be a campaign to oust work by Franz Kurowski from Wikipedia. On his home page there is an enormous list he has compiled himself on this subject (not just about Kurowski). He does this without being able to show that any of the information in the article is unreliable. Most of what he says appears to derived from his own opinions and "research", as he calls it, which is contravention of WP:Original Research. I'd encourage other editors to read those threads carefully, as there is no sense repeating it all here.

Moreover, Coffman seems to be trying to tell you that the majority of editors are in opposition to Kurowski's use: in actual fact three have yet to return to give a substantial opinion, and three (including myself) regard him as a reliable enough source for Otto Kittel. Dapi89 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment needed on Draft at AfC

We have a draft at AfC that needs to be interpreted for notability: Draft:Kenneth W. Hunzeker. I would appreciate any help you can give because we don't appear to have any experts in this area that are reviewing at this time. Thank you, LaMona (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@LaMona: G'day, thanks for posting this. I made a few tweaks, but nothing significant. As a corps commander with the rank of lieutenant general, I'd say that the subject is most probably notable per WP:MILPEOPLE (specifically points 3 and 6), although the article still needs a bit of work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the subject is notable, but the article reads a bit like a corporate bio. The editor who created it has disclosed that they're an employee of the firm which now employs Mr Hunzeker. I don't fancy volunteering my time to assist with this paid editor's work promoting their colleague/boss. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think he meets the criteria for notability: esp "Deputy Commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq" 2007-10 -- a highly important operation. from Wiki criteria:

YES: Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer

YES Played an important role in a significant military event; [US war in Iraq]Rjensen (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Now that I know it meets notability, I will do my AfC duty and try to get it into better shape before pushing it out to main space. Yes, assisting paid editors is one of the pains of AfC, and they are legion (in keeping with the military theme). LaMona (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Marshall E. Cusic Jr.

Is this individual notable? czar 10:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)