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 August 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 • Battle of Saipan • Siege of Baghdad • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Castlereagh–Canning duel Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Suleiman I of Candar • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Mehmed of Dulkadir • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) • Rumpler 6B • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Soviet cruiser Vladivostok • Sack of Delhi (1757) Good article reassessments 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,019) • only work on referencing and citation (43,205) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,222) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,791) • work on structure (31,838) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,170) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,845) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (1) • assessment as lists (1) • project tags fixed (14) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (0) • task forces added (5) • attention to task force coverage (656)

WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles

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 sources come 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)

I'm not familiar with this author nor have I looked into these are articles yet, but in light of your comments here, it still stands as worthwhile to have additional uninvolved editors review these pages, so that the matter can be settled one way or the other. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, yes. I have asked him repeatedly for sources over the last week, but he has not delivered them. The article is uncontroversial, as is the content. I await further comment from the uninvolved. Dapi89 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I am only involved on the Otto Kittel and Erich Hartmann articles because I added to the content. The other three I have not looked at. Dapi89 (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I am fully supportive of adding sources which help support information in an article, underline conflicting information, or help prove information to be incorrect. Having said this, if the book The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser & Davies, which by the way is not free of criticism on Amazon (see Editorial Reviews), helps to improve the article by either verifying or by disproving content, it will find my full support. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not a member of the WikiProject, but I did bother to read the long list of changes that User:K.e.coffman has posted on his/her page. Some of them are non-controversial cleaning of unsourced statements and editing of proper links and language. However, others might need to be discussed. While the user seems concerned about POV, I am not certain, his/her own edits are free of it.:

[....]

I am somewhat concerned that the user is motivated by his/her own POV rather than following sources. I hope that the changes can be compared to what the available sources actually say, to establish if further changes are needed. With cases involving Nazis, one should keep in mind that they have been subject to demonizing for the last 70 years and dispassionate sources can be rare. Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved to subsection "Alternate history department" below. Please find responses there. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Separately, here's another problematic GA article: Walther von Brauchitsch. It heavily uses an ancient 1944 source, which was picked by the editor "precisely because it was written in 1944, where the existence of the Holocaust was not yet known, which make Harts bio on Brauchitsch more neutral (in my opinion)". Please see: Brauchitsch – GA reassessment

Kurowski: "Journalism of gray and brown zone"

Summary of the criticism of the source via Franz Kurowski & The Myth of the Eastern Front (reposted from the RSN discussion):

• Kurowski is a guru, i.e. an author, "(who) have picked up and disseminated the myths of the Wehrmacht in a wide variety of popular publications that romanticize the German struggle in Russia"
• In his German wiki article, statements like "historical revisionist tendencies", "right-wing publisher", "far-right", "journalism of gray and brown zone"; "inspired by British Holocaust denier David Irving", etc, appear prominently. 'The Myth of the Eastern Front" is also mentioned. The article is well sourced to historians and other WP:RS sources.
• "Military historian Jürgen Rohwer began a critical examination of the data published by Nazi Germany on successes (sunken tonnage) of submarine commanders in 1957. Afterwards, Kurowski belonged to the authors who held on to the details of the Nazi propaganda regardless of the research results." (Please see source and exact citation on De Wikipedia article above. So his numbers of "victories" are not to be trusted, IMO.)
• "In his 2001 book Bombs over Dresden Kurowski included a 16 pages long "eyewitness reports" of low-flying aircraft hunting civilians. In fact, that was a made-up account. Lars-Broder Keil and Sven Felix Kellerhoff criticized Kurowski in their book German legends. (I believe in plain English this is called "lies". Please see citation on De.wikipedia.)

The Otto Kittel article is almost exclusively cited to Kurowski.

I had requested a translation of the De article on Kurowski, so that a an article on the English wiki can be created. The article is not finished yet, but you can read the draft translation here: | Draft:Franz Kurowski. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just for info, I have made a few minor edits to the draft, most importantly linking Fuller. Irondome (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is a translation of the German Wikipedia article on Kurowski[1]. Clearly not an RS source by any stretch of the imagination. An advocate with a clear agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Has this matter and these editors cropped up before? Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Since Kurowski is neither an academic author nor published with an academic publisher, it is up to whomever is using him as a source to provide evidence that he is a reliable source. If K is only used to provide basic facts, the question is, why these can not be found in other, more reliable, sources. If K's opinion is related, it has to be made clear from what POV he is writing. The underlying problem with K, and authors like him, is, that English-language authors are liberally using these authors as sources without questioning their narrative, mostly, because they are unaware of their political affiliations. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP|ÄDA - DÄP VA- You are correct hit the nail on the head. There are so many reliable sources on the Eastern front that I have read and own ie. Albert Seaton, John Erickson, Earl Ziemke, and David Glantz. Why bother with Kurowski.?--Woogie10w (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Largely agree, if not for the fact that Kurowski is the only source (to my knowledge) which currently covers Kittel's personal background and family status (documented with family images). According to the Badische Zeitung, his son Manfred Kittel is currently working on a book about his father. This book, if considered reliable in this specific context (Manfred Kittel is not a historian), could supplement Kurowski. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP VA, you've failed to understand this is not an academic article, it does not require Professors or PhD holders to source it - being an uncontroversial article.

The user questioning Kurowski uses a source that calls him a revisionist without proper explanation, and then acknowledges the accuracy of his work on specific personalities and units within the German military.

The burdern of proof is clearly on Coffman. He has complied a short list and a German wikipedia article to support his contention. The first is vague and incomplete (AND contradictory), the second contains sources that cannot be traced by authors whose backgrounds are unknown. Dapi89 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with MisterBee1966 after I revisted the articles on Wikipedia that use Kurowski as a source. Kurowski was a prolific writer who specialized in WW2 German militaria, the lives and heroic deeds of German servicemen in the war. Some of his works are in the New York Public Library. A lot of good work has been done on Wikipedia using Kurowski as a source, the lives of the Aces, U-Boot crews and tank units. Kurowski is in the same genre as Osprey Publishing in the English speaking world. We need to keep Kurowski as a source but point out in a bio that he ignored the dark side of Nazi Germany and shined the spotlight on the German servicemen in the war. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There is also a POV involved in outright rejecting historical revisionism. Our article on the subject points to several cases where the views of revisionists challenged and replaced the previously established consensus views of mainstream historians. Leading to a new consensus or new discussion on the topic, and in some cases challenges from a new generation or revisionists. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This is most certainly not an academic article and nobody would be fooled about it. But WP is working according to academic standards, i.e. every statement of fact or opinion needs to be sourced by reliable and verifiable sources. The problem with Kurowski is, that in his prose he was prone to either omit unpleasant aspects or stated as facts certain myths circulating in far-right narratives in Germany. While the former is not a problem, since there are other authors focusing on these aspects, the latter is unacceptable. The problem is how to sort out what is proven fact and what is neo-Nazi propaganda. This is what makes Kurowski an unreliable source. A few examples:

• Kurowski wrote a book published in 2007 about U-48, which fails to elaborate on the sinking of SS City of Benares, for which U-48's CO was put on trial after the war. To Kurowski these post-war trials were merely drummed up charges to smear the memories of wartime heroes.
• In his 1995 book about the Fallschirm-Panzerkorps Hermann Göring Kurowski described the unit's operations against partisans. While he went into great detail of partisan atrocities against German military personnel, he omitted any German reprisals against civilians.
• In 1983 and again in 1995 books by Kurowski were published by Druffel, one of the largest right-wing extremist publishing houses in Germany, which contained the myth about "The Massacre at Elbe Meadows".

Unfortunately this does not make Kurowski an unsuccessful writer, to the contrary. He wrote what people wanted to read and believe - and still do. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It is too risky to use this as a source and requires ample amounts of OR to sort potential wheat from the chaff.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP Kurowski gives us the typical West German working class version of the war. The memoirs of Von Manstein, Guderian and of course Paul Carell et al. are all in the same vain. Here is Kurowski live [2] When I was in Germany 45 years ago I was warned never ever to argue with these guys. Discussion with people like this is futile. During the war they gunned down 40,000 unarmed civilians in Warsaw and then went to Sunday mass. However Kurowski's books may be of value because he covers the lives of individual soldiers and airmen. A few pearls may be laying in the pile of shit--Woogie10w (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem is that if we start scouring through the pile we will inevitably get ourselves dirty. It is much better for Wikipedia to rely on mainstream historians instead of popularized accounts like these.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The lives of Kurowski's Luftwaffe, U-boat and Panzer aces are triva IMO and probably lacks the notability that we require on Wikipedia. Kurowski's books are the sole source for the Wikipedia bios of these Nazi superheros. I wonder if anyone has checked these articles to see if there are copyright violations here on Wikipedia. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I went to my bookshelves and consulted the Luftwaffe Databook by Alfred Price published in 1997. The book has an extensive bibliography that does not include Kurowski's books. Listed in this bibliography are Die Ritterkreuzträger der Luftwaffe 1939 - 1945. Band 1: Jagdflieger by Ernst Obermaier, Das waren die deutschen Kampfflieger-Asse 1939-1945 by Georg Brütting and Luftwaffe Fighter Aces by Mike Spick. These books are available on the internet, check for yourself. Why rely on Kurowski and J J Fedorowicz Publishing Inc? --Woogie10w (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if Kurowski's representatives and publishers are using Wikipedia to promote his books.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

By all means use the works of Alfred Price, Ernst Obermaier, Georg Brütting and Mike Spick for the article on Otto Kittel, but I don't think they cover Kittel's personal background and family status like Kurowski does. How exactly is Kurowski's coverage of Kittel's personal details so controversial that we need to write yards of discussion across multiple boards? --Nug (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski is controversial because he was a apologist for the crimes of Hitler Germany. [3] The man was not a professional historian, he cranked out pulp biographies of Nazi superheros. Does Wikipedia really need these articles which use Kurowski as their sole source published by J J Fedorowicz?--Woogie10w (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion became contentious after I attempted to clean up the non-encyclopedic prose on Otto Kittel, followed by this revert. This was followed by an extended discussion on the Talk page (started prior to the revert) and then at the RSN, with edit summaries such as:

• "uncivil/failed to prove case as can be seen in evasive and irrelevant answers."
• "No Stephan, no. A clear lack of understanding."
• "no way, read the thread. First allegation was of unreliability. Onus is on those MAKING the allegation"
• "weird response. editor doesn't understand burden of proof, and isn't offering any"

As part of the discussion at RSN, the involved editor asked for "Infinitely more" feedback, so I started the thread here where the matter could get more eyes from editors interested in military history. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

To Keith-264's question, yes, I have run into opposition before, please see (reposted from my userpage):

• It's "vandalism" to remove sources not used for citations, especially if they are WP:SELFPUBLISH and/or come from non WP:RS right-wing publisher Nation Europa
• Again, "vandalism" to remove content uncited from 2012; it must be restored
• The content, uncited from Mar 2015, was apparently "vandalized", then why go in and add citations and sources?
• Also "vandalism" to remove mythology from Franz Kurowski; compare to this diff (see section: Assessment as tank commander)

Special mentions

• "Same unencyclopedic POV push as on List of World War II Panzer aces from Germany from K.e.coffman." The diff is an article about "the hero of all Nazi fanboys" (per Zaloga), Michael Wittmann.
• Discussion on the Talk page: Talk:Michael_Wittmann#Kurowski
• "Unfounded claim that Kurowski is not WP:RS
• Another problematic article Hans von Luck -- more than 50% of citations are to subject's memoirs, while the WP:OWN editor insists on restoring non-notable details and the subject's interpretation of events
• Editor repeatedly removes "unreliable sources" tag, and gives their reasons on the Talk:8th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)

Cheers, K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Misterbee1966 was justified in reverting you. There are a load of sources that site this figure for the amount of equipment he (Wittman) was credited with or claimed. There is nothing controversial about this. Wittman's notability is based on his success.

Accusing other editors of WP:OWN won't win you a debate especially when they are asking you, quite reasonably, to support your claims or offer rational explanation for your edits. Dapi89 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the last one of your vandalism list; as noted on the talkpage there, it is not so simple to call that mythology. Numerous sources, falsely, consider Wittmann to be the top scorer of the war. More reliable sources provide lists of the top German tank commanders. In this case, while Kurowski may not be a RS, it was not exactly providing false or mythological information. As noted, George Forty's list attributed to the work of Wolfgang Schneider: 121-138 tank claims, with 132 anti-tank gun claims as well (ranking him fourth, regardless of the lower or higher figure).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I objected not to the revert (these happen and are normal part of the collaborative editing process), but to the edit summary: "vandalsim, adding back cited material" – that was after I initiated the discussion on the Talk page and laid out my rationale. Other edit summaries from the list above include: "Vandalism"; "restore vandalised content"; "restore vandalism", etc.

I had previously expressed to the editor my disagreement with their labeling my contributions as "vandalism" See: Your most recent edits, the discussion on my Talk page, following my removal of uncited material (tagged from 2011/2012, which should be removed per WP:V) and circular references to other wiki page, containing said uncited content. This was "vandalism" even though the editor went in and added sources to the restored material. Which leads me to believe that there were indeed issues with the material as I encountered it.

I do not find these edits summaries to be in the spirit of WP:Civility. I've never included "vandalism" in my edit summaries, except in a case of blatant IP trolling. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Myth of the Eastern Front

If we are going to debate the merits of the source criticising Kurowski, here are two reviews that I had previously posted to Talk:Otto Kittel:

• Tracing the Resurrection of a Reputation: How Americans Came to Love the German Army, by a professional historian ("The book is a fascinating immersion into a simple but important question: How did the German soldiers who fought on the eastern front during World War Two become hero figures to so many Americans?")
• ...Has a convincing central line of argument but will fail to have any impact on its target, from feldgrau.net, one of the websites of "romances" that the book critiques. Interesting discussion follows.

Cheers, K.e.coffman (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The review by professional historian Kelly McFall is rather positive but points to the limitations of this work. To summarize:

• The authors focus exclusively on the perception of the Eastern Front by the popular culture of the United States. A rather "narrow topic" as the reviewer says. So we are not dealing with a global perspective at all.
• The first section of the book focuses on the prevailing American of Nazi Germany, the Wehrmacht, and the Schutzstaffel in the period during World War II and its immediate aftermath. Their sources involve newspapers, magazines, and other American media of the period.
• The book then covers positive views on the Germans, produced early in the Cold War era. Based on on the changing geopolitical climate, the appearance of German military sources which vindicated their side of the conflict, and support of this effort by the American military. The reviewer finds that "the authors do a thorough job discrediting the claims made by the German officers in their memoirs, which can no longer be viewed as even minimally respectable."
• The problem of this section is that apparently the writers have a rather peculiar understanding of what popular culture is about. The reviewer points that the pro-German sources and memoirs found an audience in "American soldiers and leaders". But the authors do not really establish if the pro-German sources had any effect on the American "public opinion" and popular culture. To quote from the review: "There’s no reference to public opinion polling data, for instance, nor to sales figures nor is there an attempt to do a demographic analysis of readership (admittedly a challenging task). Consequently, it’s more difficult to assess changing perceptions of the German army among ordinary Americans." Basically it is unclear if the average American was even aware these sources existed.
• The third section of the book covers the appearance of a new generation of "devotees of the German army and its campaigns in the east". They included new authors, wargaming fans, and historical reenactment. The reviewers finds this section provides "insightful and exciting research" and that "Smelser and Davies astutely identify a set of sources historians have rarely tapped and survey it thoroughly." They identify the so-called "gurus" of this generation, influential authors and speakers which present "a heroic, sanitized picture of the German army in the east".
• The problem the reviewers identifies with this section is its limits. The authors examine the "iconography and mechanics of war games" of the 1970s and the 1980s, along with their effects on gamers. But they ignore war games that do not involve or focus on the Eastern Front, do not identify how large this community of fans actually is, and fail to establish whether their views "have spread outside their group". They reviewer points that the section ends in the 1980s and does not cover developments of the 1990s and later, such as the appearance of "vast networks of computer gamers" who are also interested in World War II.
• Among the short-comings of this book that the reviewer points out is that it is an examination of popular culture which manages to mostly ignore the influence of movies and television. The reviewer offers as examples the History Channel (which she mention is nicknamed the "Hitler Channel"), and war movies like Schindler’s List [1993] and Saving Private Ryan.

We currently lack an article on the perceptions of Nazi Germany in popular culture. The closest we have is one on Nazis in fiction, that seems to ignore that they have had appearances in the post-war era. This book might be an excellent source to start an article on the topic. But its narrow focus and omissions may render it inadequate as a source for military history. Dimadick (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternate history department

Here's more info on these edits. The bulleted items in italics are queries from @Dimadick:, the plain items are mine:

• The following change on the Eugen Müller article, the author of the Commissar Order, made the following change: The article stated (sourced to Hans-Adolf Jacobesn) that the Order was unfavorably viewed by a number of German generals who initially refused to carry it out. Several Wehrmacht commanders apparently asked for the order to be softened, and Adolf Hitler himself declined any modification on the offer. The user changed the article to remove mention on one of the commanders who apparently viewed it unfavorably, because he claims that it contradicts another Wikipedia article. Whether the source supports was not addressed.

Manstein's supposed opposition to the Commissar Order was a myth put forth in Manstein’s memoirs. Please see Erich von Manstein#Trial. This invalidates the rest of the citation to Hans-Adolf Jacobsen; he may be an RS source, but I’ve seen enough sources mis- or selectively quoted to have the confidence to remove the citation. For examples, please see Arthur Nebe #1 & 2, Arthur Nebe #3 and SS Div Das Reich: Heaton.

• The following edit removed a claim in the article on Arthur Nebe that Nebe was purposely exaggerating the numbers of people he had killed when reporting to his superiors. This was not sourced in this paragraph, but this claim is discussed and evaluated later in the same article, with sources.

The claim that Nebe “worked to reduce atrocities committed” is a myth put forth in an effort to white wash his war crimes; please see: Arthur Nebe: Apologetics. Nebe's was the first article of the WWII mythology genre that I encountered, with WP:RS sources inappropriately used to support various legends. Compare the current version with the way I encountered it: Arthur Nebe, Oct 2015: "This began the process of turning Nebe against the Nazis” (in 1933!); "Foreseeing the crimes in which he would be involved, he tried to escape it… ”; "He worked with Henning von Tresckow and Fabian von Schlabrendorff to reduce the atrocities committed…”; "In late 1942 after the Wannsee Conference, Nebe informed his fellow conspirators of the plans for the so-called Final Solution.”

• The following edit in the article on Erich Marcks removed a paragraph (sourced by Beevor) that Marcks favored "Spartan" ways (austere, frugal, characterized by self-denial) by refusing to accept servings of whipped cream and protesting that Nazi Germany was starving. The user does not find this sourced claim notable, but is unclear why.

Not notable, second-hand anecdote from an “admiring subordinate”; just because something can be cited, does not mean that it should be included. In this case, it struck me as POV.

• The following edit on the Otto Weidinger article, which mostly lacks sources, changed a paragraph on the post-war fate of Weidinger. The user kept the fact that Weidinger was held in custody without a trial for several years, until finally receiving one in 1951. But the user removed the reasons of the custody.

The reason for his extended custody was not specified, so I removed it per WP:V Additionally, the article stated, twice: "...were considered to be war criminals by virtue of having served in the Waffen-SS..." and "All were charged with a war crime for being volunteers in the Waffen-SS..."; that sounded POV to me, especially as it was not specified what Weidinger was charged with.

• The following link [4] changed a paragraph on the Hunger Plan which was sourced to Adam Tooze. The paragraph stated that the plan to prioritise the availability of food on the areas held by Nazi Germany so that Germans would be fed and the rest of the population would starve was in part motivated by the low amount of food supplies in German-held areas. The editor removed the rational of the plan, claiming that it was POV to publish Nazi self-justifications.

In the context of death from starvation of millions in the occupied countries in the war of extermination, stating, in Wikipedia’s voice, that “Germany was running short of food” struck me as POV.

• The following edit on the Sepp Dietrich article, which is mostly without sources, is an addition rather than a deletion. In a paragraph stating that Dietrich was denied a pension by West Germany, the user stated that the rationale was that war criminals do not get pensions. The problem is that this rationale is also unsourced.

I'll look for a source or remove.

• The edit on the article about the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich changed a paragraph sourced to Weidinger. The paragraph starts by stating the number of victims in the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre. Then the paragraph stated that Sylvester Stadler, commander of the "Der Führer" regiment, started a court martial investigation about the "incident" because the officer involved was acting without orders. The user removed mention of this investigation as "apologia”.

Weidinger’s account is apologia; pls see SS Div Das Reich: Post-war apologia. I replaced the “investigation” with a statement about a supposed court martial, with “citation needed" tag.

• The following edit on the Hans-Ulrich Rudel article removed a paragraph on the escape of Rudel from Soviet-held territory on foot, because the paragraph was sourced to Rudel's autobiography. I am not certain if this was a reliable source, but the user did not start a review of it.

Obvious apocrypha, apparently coming from subject’s memoirs. The article was subsequently edited by another contributor to relay the circumstances of his capture in more neutral language. Please see Rudel: Defeat on the Eastern Front, 1st para.

• The following edit on the Sepp Dietrich changed a source and shortened a paragraph. A section sourced to Tiemann stated that when Dietrich received an order by Adolf Hitler to tell members of the LSSAH to give up their cuff titles, Dietrich chose to disregard the order and decided that the armbands "...would stay on." The user changed the source to Stein and reduced the sentence to simply say that "Dietrich did not relay the order to his troops." Which changes the meaning of the section.

This was a copy-over from another article, more neutrally worded; please see: Operation_Spring_Awakening#Aftermath. Tiemann is a HIAG author, so his account should be considered biased, and potentially unreliable; please see HIAG: Historical revisionism.

• The following edit on the Afrika Korps article completely removed a section of the article speaking of the quality of the German forces in Africa which made them stand out. It was sourced to Toppe and Rommel.

This edit was done by another editor, but I obviously agreed with it; otherwise, I would not have put it on my list. Rommel is WP:primary source, edited by Liddel Hart and Beyerlein, two people with a conflict of interest. Please see Liddell Hart: Role in the “Rommel myth”, for example.

• The following edit has nothing to do with World War II. It is the article on the Wiederbewaffnung (rearmament) of West Germany in the 1950s by a decision of the United States. The article stated (sourced to David R. Snyder) that the American rationale was to prevent a Soviet invasion of West Germany. It seems to be standard Cold War thinking, but the editor removed mention of an invasion.

“Further Soviet invasions” implies that there were more than one; in addition, this statement struck me as POV as the literature that I’ve seen does not describe the Soviet advance into Germany as an “invasion".

• The following edit on the Battle of Slivice article, which is mostly unsourced, changed a paragraph on the suicide of von Pückler-Burghaußl. The rationale of the suicide was the Americans refused to accept his surrender and the man feared what would happen to him if he fell to Soviet hands. The user removed all mention that the man feared the Soviets as "POV”.

The language included: "...attempted to storm the Germans and were decimated. ... The American negotiators refused to take the General, so, fearing revenge from the Russians..." These are typical tropes in the "parallel universe" WWII content: "decimated" (poetic language); "Russians" (alternate ethnography); implied "American perfidy", for refusing to accept the surrender of German forces after the agreed upon May 8 deadline, etc.

• The user removed all mentions of the Russian Winter from a number of articles, claiming that it is a myth. Our article on the subject points that the effect of the Winter on warfare is exaggerated but "it is undeniable that severe winter conditions contributed greatly to their [the invasions of Russian-held territory] subsequent troubles.

The article General Winter speaks for itself, while the “coldest winter in 50 years” stopping the Wehrmacht is a myth. “Brutal Russian winter” trope is largely apologia by the former Werhmacht generals. More on this and on the mythology of the Eastern Front in general, please see this interesting lecture by Jonathan House (Glantz’s co-author for ‘’When Titans Clashed’’): "The Three Alibis", where "Russian winter" is discussed as one of the alibis for the German army losing the war. The discussion on the numerical superiority follows, debunking the myth of the "endless waves of men and tanks" eventually "submerging" the supposedly superior Wehrmacht (to quote Friedrich von Mellenthin).

• "I am somewhat concerned that the user is motivated by his/her own POV rather than following sources. I hope that the changes can be compared to what the available sources actually say, to establish if further changes are needed. With cases involving Nazis, one should keep in mind that they have been subject to demonizing for the last 70 years and dispassionate sources can be rare". Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia is that you can immediately take action if you come across something that is dubious or POV. I’ve not been challenged on the edits above, which tells me that the other editors agreed with me. But if these look problematic after my comments above, let’s discuss. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary on Kurowski

Here's the summary of statements from non-involved editors, who participated in the discussion on the Otto Kittel talk page, at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or on this Talk page, roughly in chronological order:

Non RS

1. Nick-D: "I agree that this isn't a reliable source. Smelser & Davis' analysis of Kurowski's works is convincing (I've read the book). Moreover, I can't remember ever seeing him used as a reference in high quality books on the war, despite being very prolific."
2. Darkfrog24: "Sounds like it's not exactly history, that it's historical narrative; is this indeed non-fiction? [...] There maybe some case in which it is appropriate to cite this source, not in general no."
3. Stephan Schulz: "[Kurowski is] published by fringe publishers and with a widely recognised bias. As far as I know, none of his books are "well-received" as factual histories among academic experts - either they are ignored, or criticised. [...] He is not reliable because there is serious doubt about the quality of his work in general."
4. Coretheapple: "Clearly not an RS source by any stretch of the imagination. An advocate with a clear agenda."
5. ÄDA - DÄP VA: "The problem with Kurowski is, that in his prose he [...] stated as facts certain myths circulating in far-right narratives in Germany, [which] is unacceptable. The problem is how to sort out what is proven fact and what is neo-Nazi propaganda. This is what makes Kurowski an unreliable source."
6. maunus: "It is too risky to use this as a source and requires ample amounts of OR to sort potential wheat from the chaff. [...] If we start scouring through the pile we will inevitably get ourselves dirty. It is much better for Wikipedia to rely on mainstream historians instead of popularized accounts like these."
7. Woogie: "The lives of Kurowski's Luftwaffe, U-boat and Panzer aces are triva IMO and probably lack the notability that we require on Wikipedia. [...] The man was not a professional historian, he cranked out pulp biographies of Nazi superheros.

RS/Biased

1. Nug: "Kurowski may well indeed be a "Romanciser" of the German military, that does not mean that he is completely unreliable, particularly in regard to operational details and events. So I would treat Kurowski in terms of WP:Biased, because while being a veteran himself his is obviously biased towards the German army, he also has a "painfully accurate" knowledge of the details, according to his critics."
2. Peacemaker: "I would consider it reliable for non-opinion material (ie places, dates, actions). [...] A very sensible summary [re: Nug's comment above], IMHO."

I hope I correctly summarised the positions of those who rendered an opinion. Please feel free to correct or adjust as needed.

Question: does this constitute enough of a consensus to consider Kurowski non WP:RS source for WWII history articles?

Comment: No. This has been an exercise in forum-shopping, and I for one am pretty sick of you banging on about this bloke. You have collected opinions sought at a range of places, then added them all up, rather than making your case comprehensively in one place and attracting editors there from relevant WikiProjects to make comment in a consolidated discussion where everyone interested is following it. This whole process has been dubious. You have now created what is effectively an attack page on Kurowski and been going around linking it to articles where he is used as a source. I don't care for Kurowski as a source, but this is pretty much a crusade. I've seen that before in the areas where I edit, and it usually says more about the campaigner. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the article Franz Kurowski is taking shape; more eyes on it would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Marshall E. Cusic Jr.

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

I think WP:SOLDIER tells us "yes" because he's a flag officer; having said that, I also think the article's a little thin.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gaarmyvet, is WP:SOLDIER officially recognized or used at AfD? Or is it just an indicator that sources should exist? Do you know where I could find sufficient sources to get this one past the general notability guideline? czar 18:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER is a valid link to a portion of the notability policy page. There are a bunch of pages in Google, including one for his promotion to rear admiral. On a quick look, he may also be notable as a physician.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

All right, thanks. If anyone else has feedback, please {{ping}} me.  czar 22:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Medals again

I have tried to fix up the medals in the article on Alan Shepard, based on this picture of him wearing his ribbons. Can someone help me out here? In particular, what is the ribbon on the right in the second row? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Antarctica Service Medal...? - ^theWOLFchild 05:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on What I'm seeing he has in the picture, I make his awards to be as follows from top to bottom, in order of appearance:

• Distinguished Service Medal, Presidential Unit Citation, Joint Service Commendation Medal
• Asia Pacific Medal w/3? service stars, American Theatre Campaign Medal, American Defense Medal,
• European, Africa, Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal
• National Defense Service Medal, Korea Service Medal, United Nations Medal
• Philippine Defense Medal, Philippine Liberation Medal, ???

Not sure if that helps though, and do take these with a grain of salt - some may be close but not quite. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on the tables at Awards and decorations of the United States Armed Forces, I can't seem to find another medal that looks like the one you're looking for. The Antarctic one looks like the closest match. But doing a cursory search, I didn't see that Shepard was awarded that one. Does anyone know if he had anything to do with Antarctica during his career? Anyway, the rest of the awards in that photo appear to be as follows;

• Distinguished Service Medal • Distinguished Flying Cross (United States)
• NASA Distinguished Service Medal • Presidential Unit Citation • Antarctica Service Medal (?)
• Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal† (4 stars) • American Campaign Medal† • American Defense Service Medal†
• European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal† • World War II Victory Medal† • Navy Occupation Service Medal
• National Defense Service Medal • Korean Service Medal† • United Nations Korea Medal‡↔
• Philippine Defense Medal‡↔♦ • Philippine Liberation Medal‡ (2 stars) • Navy Rifle Marksmanship Ribbon

notes

• † - obsolete
• ‡ - foreign & int'l
• ↔ - wrong order?
• ♦ - inverted?

Whatever medal that is, it's not currently listed on his page. I've noted the ones that are listed as 'obsolete' or as 'foreign & international'. I'm not sure if his United Nations Korea Medal and Philippine Defense Medal are in the right order and his Philippine Defense Medal seems to be inverted. - ^theWOLFchild 13:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - This has intrigued me. I also checked Awards and decorations of the United States government along with the various medal templates, but didn't find anything. I spent some time hunting around the internet trying to find any info linking Shepard with Antarctica, I also tried finding other medals with the same color scheme, but still no luck. One thing however; I think this photo was originally black & white, so I'm wondering if when it was colored, was the medal done incorrectly? Anyway, I guess I'll keep hunting. - ^theWOLFchild 17:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There are actually four campaign stars on the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal (Leyte, Luzon, Western Pacific, Ryukyus). On the other hand, I have no idea how the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal was earned. Nor the Presidential Unit Citation; some sources say it was earned on Cogswell, but the Navy records do not indicate that ship earned such a citation. The medal that should be in the second row spot is the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, which records show he was awarded in 1969. There was a long list of awards that year in the wake of the moon landing. (Of course in 2015, with no US space program to speak of and no missions flow, far less awards. (Just kidding.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Per this page, Shepard earned 2 NASA DSMs. I think the image shows that. Doesn't answer the question though. ☺ user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 22:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he received one in 1961, and a second in 1971. I think the star indicates that. As he was promoted to rear admiral in 1971, and the photograph seems to be of that occasion, he would not have yet received it at the time the photograph was taken. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Perhaps it wasn't his uniform, just something quickly cobbled together by someone else for the photo. That could explain some of the inconsistencies; the unexplained and/or missing medals, medals in the wrong order, another one upside-down, etc. Did you have any thoughts on the Antarctica one? - ^theWOLFchild 12:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I can show that Shepard was in VF-193, that VF-193 was onboard the USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31), and that the Richard was awarded a PUC. I can't yet put them all together at one time, and I would think VF-193 would not be entitled to share the award of the Richard, but maybe so. Here is another image of Shepard's awards. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 15:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That is just a mirror site, basically a copy of his article from here on WP. - ^theWOLFchild 16:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

He was in VF-193, but not on Bon Homme Richard; he served on Oriskany. But that ribbon is definitely the PUC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Found it!!!

I found it on eBay. The mysterious Dark Blue/Blue/Sky-Blue/Light Blue/White/Light Blue/Sky-Blue/Blue/Dark Blue medal is the NASA Distinguished Service Medal. Apparently, only three of these were issued (to Crowley, Shepard and Gus Grissom) before they changed to the new type. [5]. Shepard wore both the old type and the new. Anybody know someone who can create a ribbon image for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice job! - ^theWOLFchild 22:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Anybody know someone who can create a ribbon image for me? - there are ribbon rack makers online. Just Google it. You make a customized one, save it and then upload here. Viola! - ^theWOLFchild 05:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Also the American Campaign Medal & American Defense Service Medal are in the wrong order (the ADSM predates the ACM). As for the order of the UN medal vs the Philippine medals, I've never seen where the US Navy ranks their respective precedence, I can only assume it's the same as in the Marine Corps. Gecko G (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely sure about the precedence, (hence the ? marks), but that Philippine medal is inverted, I'm pretty sure about that. - ^theWOLFchild 00:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Military history to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History//FA-Class military history articles/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this - it's very interesting. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man: Is this a different list from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages? If not, then I imagine we'll want to move the list to that title. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man: Really interesting! Is the double slash ( // ) intentional though? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the list over to the old location (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages) and updated the bot's configuration to use that for future updates. Hopefully that didn't break anything; I suppose we'll find out next month. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Normandy campaign disruptive editor

Pls observe Operation Jupiter (1944), Operation Charnwood, Battle for Caen etc for refusal to stop reverting and discuss on talk pages. Keith-264 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This IP 120.16.209.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now passsed 3RR and is edit warring, ignoring requests to take to Talk page of various pages. David J Johnson (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If the user does not stop, then give warning(s) for disruptive editing, such as Template:Uw-disruptive2 or Template:Uw-disruptive3, and the user will probably get a break from editting. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Reported for edit warring. David J Johnson (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted, let me know if s/he resumes. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I did attempt to get the editor to at least engage in discussion, which clearly they were not willing to do. If, for some reason, we needed to build consensus on the subject, off my own shelf: Terry Copp uses the term "Anglo-Canadian" in reference to British-Canadian forces and operations, as does Charles Perry Stacey. On the other hand, I do not note Brian Reid doing so in at least No Holding Back. That is all the Canadians, I believe, I have on hand access too.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I use it as a synonym and since a lot of my Great War sources are pre-1945 it appears in descriptions of proto-Commonwealth operations too. I thought that as a matter of usage, the editor had a point to discuss but the means chosen were as peremptory as the complaint. Same thing happened when I described the 36th Division troops as Irish. Lloyd George has a lot to answer for.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to look at what contemporary sources use. Terminology in the historiography may change, and, say, 1960-1980s sources may differ from 1990-2010 ones.

I see this a lot with the wiki articles on the Eastern Front: lots of uses of "Russians", "Soviets", "Russian Front", even links such as "Russian tanks", etc. See this and this example, among many. I go by what David Glantz uses: the Read Army, Soviet forces, etc.

So it could be that "Anglo-Canadian" is a bit dated and/or colloquial. May be worth a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Anglo-Canadian" is a very poor term to use, since in Canada, it will be confused for "Anglo Canadian"/"Anglo-Canadian" (anglophone Canadian), an English-speaking Canadian (or groups of Canadian English speakers, such as English speaking military units). -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As opposed to "Francophone-Canadians", or French-Canadians, (mainly from Quebec). You do have a point there, it could lead to confusion. Also, as "Anglo" primarily denotes "England", it could be construed to be exclusive of the Scottish, Irish and Welsh, so there's that as well. Perhaps it would be best to find another, more suitable term. Why not "British-Canadian"...? - ^theWOLFchild 06:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Anglo-Canadian can be used as a term of disparagement in some regions of Quebec (usually just shortened to les Anglos) and usually mixed with some sort of cursing. I would suggest finding alternative usage. Also even though you're referring to a joint British-Canadian force, there were very few pure French units to that point in Canadian military history, so the vast majority of Canadian army units would have had mixed personnel between French and English and referring to Canadian units even haphazardly as just Anglophone is not a road that should be travelled. Llammakey (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's a term, synonym and figure of speech. It's also common usage in RS, which is what really matters. I think we need a little more confidence in the literacy of our readers. Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You've never met a French-Canadian Séparatiste apparently. Though I'd love to have an analysis as to whether it's just a British term or it's used in Canadian RS too. Llammakey (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure our readers would just as easily understand and accept "British-Canadian" as they would "Anglo-Canadian", and it's less controversial and confusing. Does anyone here object to using "British-Canadian" instead? - ^theWOLFchild 01:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ribbon image showing up as solid yellow below a certain size

Is anyone else noticing that any example of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Ribbon turns solid yellow when displayed below a certain size? OR is it just something with my system? I've been noticing it for over a month now. Gecko G (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Input please...

On the talk page for "Equipment of the United States Armed Forces", I have posted a question addressing most if not all firearms articles. Specifically, what 'wars' to list and not list in the infobox. Looking for a centralized discussion there. See Talk:Equipment of the United States Armed Forces#"Wars" (infobox). Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 12:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Attack on Convoy AN 14

Attack on Convoy AN 14 It's labelled AN 14, BN 14 and BN 7 in the text (could a naval war aficionado take a look please). Keith-264 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, although I don't think it really required a naval war aficionado to check the sources and correct what (I assume were) typos. However, since I was checking I've amended some of the dubious claims in other parts of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Who but an aficionado would know what were typos and what not? ;o)) Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 29, 2016

This one became a Featured Article in 2008, and the nominator doesn't appear to be around any more. It might well need some attention before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Who said what, and in which language?

The article Joseph H. Harper contains the following: "Premetz, knowing he had to convey the intent of the message, translated this as - "Du kannst zum Teufel gehen." (You can go to hell.)[1]"

The article Anthony McAuliffe contains the following: "Harper said, "In plain English? Go to hell."".

Who said what, and in which language? Did interpreter Premetz have to convey the intent of the message "NUTS", and did he translate it as "Du kannst zum Teufel gehen.", or did Harper say "Go to hell" and did Premetz only provide the (almost literal) translation (although in German they don't just send you to hell, they send you to the devil himself, but the meaning is the same). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland 1968–98, a colonial conflict? More views needed please

Gerrynobody and I are having real trouble coming to agreement at Template talk:British colonial campaigns and I would appreciate a third party or two adding their voices to the debate to help Gerry and me sort this out. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin

All comments would be highly appreciated here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin/archive2. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Australian Defence Headquarters, North Eastern Area

In the article for a heritage-listed building Commonwealth Offices, Townsville at 42 Sturt Street, the last two paragraphs of the history section talk about the building being used in WW2 as "Australian Defence Headquarters, North Eastern Area" and then after the war as being used as "RAAF's Recruiting Offices and Air Training Corps Headquarters". I want to create some links but military history is not my strength. Should "Australian Defence Headquarters, North Eastern Area" be linked to North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF) (which mentions both Townsville and Sturt Street in different parts of the article)? Thanks Kerry (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

RAAF North-Eastern Area Headquarters was housed in Sturt St, Townsville, from at least 1949, but the source doesn't give the street number. It could well be the same building, but as far as linking goes I'm not sure that an RAAF area HQ should be considered synonymous with an "Australian Defence" area HQ (though they could've been co-located). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just checked our orbat article for the Australian Army in the Second World War, and there does not appear to be any "Australian Defence Headquarters, NE Area." British Commonwealth armies maintained 'Area Combined Headquarters' with Air Forces and sometimes navies for home defence during World War II, and given the location on Sturt Street, it is my guess that the reference in the civilian government source (which I believe is likely a garbled reference in some way) is to some sort of combined HQ incorporating RAAF HQ NE Area. But it's up to our Australian experts to find a proper corroborating source. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I might be mistaken, but I don't think that the Australian military had combined headquarters during World War 2, with the services each having separate chains of command. I suspect that the building here only housed the RAAF regional HQ, and not a combined "defence" headquarters. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

On a similar note, I've just nominated for deletion Australian Air Defence Areas and would welcome any comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian Armed Forces

I've attempted some cleanup of this article, which had pictures of U.S. military personnel captioned as Egyptian border guards, disorganised sections (an overview halfway down the page, with huge slabs of history, after the separate history section), and barely coherent text, plus overdetailed descriptions for the top-level article, and have been reverted by enthusiastic but not-brilliantly competent at English editor @RabeaMalah:. I've reversed his revert to the untidy state the article was in, but some more eyes on this would be much appreciated. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering he's made 625 edits to that page in just the past few months, I'd say there could be a serious WP:OWNership issue here. - ^theWOLFchild 00:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, I beg you, tell him to keep away, or else I will do everything restored.--RabeaMalah (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's actually in your best interest to not restore all that content again (or even threaten to do so), or you may very well find yourself blocked from editing. Buckshot06 is both an experienced editor and admin, and knows what he's doing, which in this is case improving that article per Wikipedia's standards. Now, I've added a 'welcome' template to your talk page. You should read through the various links there to better learn your way around this project. If language is a barrier, there are Wikipedia projects in other languages you could contribute to, such as Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. If you wish to continue work here, you will need to learn to discuss issues on article talk pages, and work to resolve differences. - ^theWOLFchild 18:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Knowledgeable eyes requested at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

Could someone familiar with USMC take a look at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture? I don't know enough about it to comment wisely, and even if I did I'm about to log off. I suspect the OP has a point, and suggestions on the caption might be in order. Thanks, --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with draft review of WWII Navy Ace

Looking for any criticism of a draft I've been working on for Cecil E. Harris, the US Navy's second-highest-scoring ace of WWII.

Thanks, --Finktron (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history

At Bilcat's insistence I suggest that "When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods" be amended to "When dealing with items related to a time, avoid using anachronistic flags from other times." because, times are particular and time and period mean the same thing. Thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Time and period don't mean the same thing. Period has multiple meanings. "15:22" is a time, "the 19th century" is a time period (as distinct from other kinds of period). "Time period" is perfectly valid IMHO, but if it offends your semantic taste, try "era" – although to be picky, "era" has a geological meaning different than "time period". — Stanning (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

how about "period of history" ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Pleonasm Time is all that's necessary to refer to time (or times if more than one is being referred to). "Time period" means "time time" and "period of history" means "time". Keith-264 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Time" alone is ambiguous, which is why I reverted your change, and others here have agreed. I'm fine with some of the other suggestions, or you can propose a less ambiguous wording, and see if it gains support. - BilCat (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced Egyptian articles

In clearing up Egyptian Armed Forces, I've come across a number of articles (Unit 333, Unit 999, National Guard (Egypt)) which have been seemingly translated from Arabic Wikipedia by enthusiastic editors, but are short, incoherent paragraphs completely without references. My preference would be to delete them, for the incoherence of their writing if not anything else. What do others think? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)