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 Turabay dynasty • John Savage (soldier) • Tetricus I • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Genghis Khan Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Meligalas • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • Constantine II (emperor) • First Hunnic War • HMS Menace (1915) • Japanese destroyer Natsuzuki • CSS General Polk • Battle of Lewisburg • Bill Crawford-Compton • HMS Glenmore (1796) • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • Sentient (intelligence analysis system) • Charlemagne Good article reassessments Galatian War Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,518) • only work on referencing and citation (43,140) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,648) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,666) • work on structure (31,789) • only work on structure (357) • work on grammar (8,170) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,766) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (2) • assessment as lists (116) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (2) • task forces added (279) • attention to task force coverage (658)

Unidentified World War I Unit

I have a photo of a SPAD XVI, probably of the US Air Service the First Army Observation Group. However, I can't identify the unit emblem shown on the fuselage. Can anyone assist, please? Thank you in advance Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not among the squadron fuselage markings approved in November 1918 by the AEF. That would narrow it to either a squadron that had no combat credit or a headquarters. I tend to the latter (with a leaning toward Air Service, AEF only because I have seen a photo of Billy Mitchell by a similarly -- but not identically -- marked aircraft).--Lineagegeek (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The plane might not be American - the insignia on the wings more closely resembles the RAF then anything the US or AEF would've used. That's my take. That having been said, I agree that the eagle emblem on this picture resembles the one shown here, and again here, and in both cases associated with Billy Mitchell. Given this, it could be his personal emblem, although again I am not sure if that is a correct assessment. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The roundel on the wing seems to have a white centre, which would make it either US or Russian. British aircraft also carried a roundel on the fuselage. Alansplodge (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a small serial number on the tail - ?674 - if it helps... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish Empire wording dispute

Hi all can any interested editors comment on a dispute at Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Ottoman Empire/Turkey. It started by using the term Turkish, as per all the sources used, for the forces of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. An explanatory note is included in the article explaining why Turkish is used. However one editor changed the words from Turkish to Ottoman, then acknowledged there was a consensus, if only a small one, for Turkish. Since then they have decided that using Turkish is against W:POV policy. Even when the Ottoman Empire article uses the same terminology. To stop a potential edit war and content dispute can more editors contribute to the discussion. Thanks.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Swings and roundabouts? — Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There is an obvious misunderstanding here. The Anzac Mounted Division article deals with the period 1916 to 1919. During that time the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Army ruled over a great deal of territory, which in 1916 extended to the border with Egypt just to the south of Rafa. The Ottoman Empire flourished between 1299 and 1923 this is what the country was called between those dates. The Ottoman Empire should be used as the name of the country as it clearly identifies the region during the First World War. Turkey would be perfectly correct in 1924, but this article is not about that later time when the extensive territories commanded by the Ottoman Empire came under the control of other countries. A comparison can be made with the British Empire which was not called the United Kingdom during the First World War for similar reasons.--Rskp (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Its an interesting problem for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that there are articles on here that are misnamed or incorrectly referenced over such matters, the three I can think of off the top of my head being the Iowa-class battleships (which properly speaking should be battlecruisers since they aren't armored to withstand their own 16"/50 guns), Japan (which refers to the modern nation of Japan, not the Empire of Japan, and yet most of the war articles dealing with Japan through WWII use the former instead of the latter), and in my case specifically UK (which is not the same thing as England apparently, yet I have no problem using the terms interchangeably, and I've been barked at for doing so a few times in contentious articles). WP:COMMONNAME suggests that the article should use the name most likely to be referenced, and I'd bet in this day and age that would by Turkey, while WP:MILMOS offers no clear guidance on the subject that I can see (though I must confess I looked only at the table of contents). I'd be inclined to favor Turkey over the Ottoman since I think Turkey would be more easily understood in today's time, though we need more participation here to reach a consensus to move forward. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for a consensus as this is a "the sky is blue" issue, relating to an article about an army unit which was operational almost 100 years ago, between 1916 and 1919. While the Ottoman Empire is old fashioned in 2013 terms, it was the name of the country at that time. Names of countries change along with borders and a degree of precision, can only improve the general readers, and military historians' understanding of the period and the conflict. --Rskp (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

All the same it can not hurt us all in the long run to discuss the merits of the larger issue presented. Today its the Ottoman Turkish Empire, tomorrow it could be the UK British Empire, or something similar. Finding consensus never hurts us in the long run. More over, this could be a trailblazing discussion since it has the potential to effect a number of articles here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In these type of disputes, it normally comes down to what do the sources use/say. All the British Empire official historians and other authors use Turkey/Turkish, not just for WWI but in the Crimean War and time periods before then. As do the Germans (there allies in WWI) and the only English language book about the subject, Ericksons Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War uses Turkish and even says in the preface "This book is about the Turkish Army". Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Can it be clarified what is meant by "There is no need for a consensus as this is a the sky is blue issue". As I have no idea what that is supposed to mean and if its a policy can someone signpost to towards it? Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In summary it simply means that the editor in question feels its common knowledge that this is a fact, and therefore needs no discussion or summary, just as it is common knowledge that the sky is blue, and would therefore not need any citations to back up the claim. The relevant policies/guidelines here would be WP:V and WP:OR, specifically Wikipedia:Common knowledge, with a supporting role from the essays Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue (and yes, the irony of the essays as it relates to this post is not lost on me). TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"UK... is not the same as England apparently". I'm not surprised you've been barked at! Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I routinely see "Turkish" and "Ottoman" used interchangeably in books on World War I. The thing is, the Ottomans were Turks, and English-speakers at the time routinely called them Turks. Were all subjects of the Ottoman Empire Turkish? No. Does it matter? No. "Turk/Turkish/etc." is a convenient shorthand that everyone understands to refer to the state that existed from 1299 to 1923. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The United Kingdom describes England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and I guess the channel islands etc. while British Empire incorporated Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and etc. It would be imprecise to refer to the United Kingdom in articles which are concerned with describing events which occurred during the British Empire. The reverse would be true. The Ottoman Empire should be treated in a similar manner so that a neutral balance of opinion is maintained in Wikipedia articles. --Rskp (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

PS I suggest editors click on the link to Ottoman Empire to find out what this discussion is all about. --Rskp (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, there were plenty of Arab troops that served in the Ottoman army, they certainly weren't Turkish. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"It would be imprecise to refer to the United Kingdom in articles which are concerned with describing events which occurred during the British Empire." – This is a whopping strawman argument, because it never happens. The United Kingdom was the "seat of power" during the majority of the British Empire's existence due to prominent monarchy such as George III, Queen Victoria, etc, but no one, to the best of my knowledge, uses "British Empire" and "United Kingdom" synonymously. During an event such as the American Revolution you might expect the Colonists to refer to the "United Kingdom", "Great Britain", "England", the "King of England" or simply the "throne" or "crown" in reference to the authority preventing independence, but not the entire "British Empire", and contrary to your statement, this would be precise – it is not difficult to differentiate an empire from the countries within it or its centre. Also, you forgot about Wales, and a reading of United Kingdom's lead tells you that "Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man are Crown dependencies and are not part of the UK." Best heed your own advice, Roslyn: "I suggest editors click on the link" and get a better background before making incorrect comparisons. Most people refer to Redcoats as "the British", despite the fact that their soldiers were recruited from all over the place. Most of "the British" redcoats at Battle of Waterloo weren't even British. Does anyone take offence? No, not really, the term "British" isn't derogatory so it can't be equated with "Turkish". To suggest that the Ottoman Empire be treated like the British Empire is hogwash, because no one treats the British Empire in the manner you suggest, making it a strawman, i.e. you're requesting a compromise based on a fallacy. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And while we're on the topic of clicking on articles, you might try reading through the first sentence in the Ottoman Empire article you suggested we all read. It contains the following clause: "sometimes referred to as the Turkish Empire or simply Turkey". You might then continue to the "Name" subsection, which repeats this fact.

As Marcus pointed out, nobody does use "Great Britain" to refer to other parts of the British Empire. But, as I and others have pointed out, LOTS of people do use "Ottoman" and "Turkish" interchangeably. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As well as all the above there is a referenced note in the article in question to clarify the use of Turkish. At the time of the First World War, the modern Turkish state did not exist, and instead it was part of the Ottoman Empire. While the terms have distinct historical meanings, within many English-language sources the term "Turkey" and "Ottoman Empire" are used synonymously, although many academic sources differ in their approaches. The sources used in this article predominately use the term "Turkey". Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The World War One Source Book by Philip Haythornthwaite, a fairly well known historian, mostly of Napoleonic, has in its Index: "Ottoman Empire, see Turkey". The main entry on Turkey, spanning pages 299–305, refer to the "Turkish forces", "Turkish soldier", "Turks", "Turkish Navy", "Turkish Army", a "Turkish War Medal" (which can be found at Gallipoli Star (Ottoman Empire) but this book states that describing it as the "Gallipoli Star" is "erroneous" – one of you WWI buffs might want to investigate that claim and look to moving the page, if necessary), and there is one mention of a destroyed "Ottoman fleet" dated to 1853 rather than WWI, which I'll include for completion. Aside from that usage, which may not be relevant to the WWI period, and mention of Turkey recovering "Ottoman territory" from Russia for Islam, there is no other mention of "Ottoman" anything, only "Turkish". Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Ottoman were Turks. We must not use Ottoman in a way that suggests the Ottomans were something else. The official name of the Empire was Ottoman Empire and this should be used as such. Otherwise, we might as well follow the sources and use Ottoman and Turkish interchangeably. I don't like the neologism "Anatolian Turkish" at all; many Turks did not (and do not today) live in Anatolia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It should not be overlooked that the Ottoman Army was made up of soldiers from all the regions which today are Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Israel etc. Using "Turkey" glosses over the extent of the Ottoman Empire, even at this late stage in its more than six century history from 1299 to 1923. --Rskp (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually live in an area formerly ruled by the Ottoman Empire, and locally published sources use terms such as Ottoman Empire, Turkish Empire and Turkey interchangeably to refer to the state of the period, ditto for Ottoman or Turkish armies or garrisons - even though those certainly included troops raised locally. In my view, as long as the context clearly identifies what the term refers to, there's no actual problem with interchangeable use of such terms.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

But the British Army was made up soldiers from all over the world too, non-UK soldiers, and has been right back through history; are we also to assume that the term "British Army" in virtually all the war articles on Wiki, given that we've been in so many conflicts, glosses over them too? I think you're missing the point; you seem to be acting like there is some conspiracy to "reclassify" the Ottomans as Turks. Clearly this is not the case. Mehmed V was a Turk, as Sultan the Ottoman Empire was ruled by him much as someone like George III ruled the British Empire. Just because all the subjects are not British or not Turkish doesn't mean we can re-designate them to the "Multi-cultural Empire of Turkey". The term "Ottomans" and the term "Turkish" relate to the recognised forces as a whole, usually based on where the seat of power lies, not some politically correct socio-economic recognition of all conscripts. It's a consensus that has clearly been established by a vast number of sources, including recognised historians as well as official records. Why can't you accept that? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no issue with following the sources and referring to them as "Turkish forces", it's just that where the sources state a unit was an Arab one etc, that should be noted where relevant. I think this is just a continuation of the "battleground" approach seen with the "ANZAC/Anzac Mounted Division". Can we just reflect the sources and move on to creating content? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What is being overlooked here is that it was the Ottoman Empire which was involved in the fighting. If "Turkish forces" is used then the article is claiming only soldiers from mainland Turkey were involved. However, it might be that they were Syrian or Palestinian soldiers under the command of a German general. Therefore "Turkish forces" would be incorrect. This issue has nothing to do with the ANZAC/Anzac Mounted Division. To conflate the two issues is completely incorrect. The only things they have in common are the Sinai and Palestine campaign, Jim Sweeney and names, on the one hand of a country and on the other a division. --Rskp (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

So, they have a lot in common... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 - Thats what I tried to do just reflect the sources but another editor refuses to accept it and tagged the article stating using Turkish is WP:POV and refuses to drop the stick. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't doubt it, Jim. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Roslyn can't hold an article hostage indefinitely with "POV" tags, when clearly a great number of sources use "Turkish" terms. At the end of the day we're a bunch of amateur historians editing some freebee website, many of the sources are by paid historians who do years of dedicated research all round the world and then have it scrutinised by publishers taking a risk that it will sell. I know who my money is on. I'm also surprised to see Roslyn cherry-picking their responses here. They keep on insisting that "Turkish Army" is POV because the army drew from other nations, yet repeatedly fail to answer why the "British Army" is in the same position most of the time yet does not need revising. I think this is just a bitter argument between Jim and Roslyn, with Roslyn refusing to drop the stick despite the over-whelming evidence against them. I motion that this is clearly Tendentious editing and Roslyn's fixation on maintaining circular arguments by repeating the same nonsense like a parrot is intentionally hampering productivity. I'll follow with a break and a !vote, as it's time to conclude this matter, this thread is almost 2 weeks old and going nowhere. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that the whole thing be settled by putting a footnote in the article explaining a short history of the change from "Ottoman Empire" and "Turkey and when it happened. The average reader of the article is not going to care one way or another and probably wasn't around in 1924 anyway. In writing articles, I often find some sources that will cite something as happening and another source that says something different...both being what one would consider good reliable sources. The way I resolve this is to put both facts in a footnote saying that sources differ on the subject and move on. I realize that this is a different situation, but in many peoples minds the terms "Ottoman Empire" and "Turkey" when referring to that period of time are somewhat interchangeable. I agree with Marcus British that it is time to move on and everyone get back to what we are really here for...here's a clue...it isn't for arguments. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

See ANZAC_Mounted_Division#cite_note-2. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The note says The sources used in this article predominately use the term "Turkey". Almost all citations are based on works of Gullet, Powles and Preston, written in period 1921—3. Before Republic of Turkey was established. Taking in consideration WP:MODERNLANG essay I am uncertain if predominant usage of Turkey in this three sources is appropriate basis for terminology in 21st century internet encyclopedia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I trust that I do not need to state any of the facts here. We all know what "Ottoman" and "Turkish" mean, presumably. For that reason, I strongly prefer the term "Ottoman" in most cases—because we cannot assume that our readers know the difference between Turkey/Turks and Ottoman Empire/Ottomans. There were many competing ideologies at the time of the war—Turkish nationalism, pan-Turanianism, Ottomanism, pan-Islamism, Arab nationalism—and in light of post-war events, the most neutral term available is "Ottoman". Edward Erickson, in the definitive work on Turkey's war, justifies his use of the terms "Turkish", "Turk", etc., but curiously reverts to "Ottoman" when describing the Armenian genocide. Perhaps it was neutrality he was after. Srnec (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It would seem we also have articles on the Greco-Turkish War (1897), Italo-Turkish War (1911–1912), which obviously pre-dates the First World War. Then there is the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) before the modern state of Turkey came into existence. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention the dozen Russo-Turkish wars. Parsecboy (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And another five involving Austria - Austro–Turkish War (1526–1552), Austro–Turkish War (1566–1568), Austro–Turkish War (1663–1664), Austro–Turkish War of 1716–1718, Austro–Turkish War (1787–1791). Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Good point. In all those articles Ottoman Empire is referred to as Ottoman Empire. Just like in Military of the Ottoman Empire and in articles within Category:Military of the Ottoman Empire. The term used to refer to the war is different from the term used to refer to the Ottoman Empire and its forces. It is interesting that editors who are opposed to the consistency are attempting to justify pro-Turkish position with usage in other articles.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator - you've missed the point. Those wars illustrate the fact that "Turkish" and "Ottoman" are very widely used interchangeably long before 1923. In other words, English-speakers have been referring to the Ottoman Empire as "Turkish" for centuries. Both terms are eminently suitable for use in any article (which is to say, there is no need for a hard and fast rule one way or the other). Parsecboy (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is about appropriate terminology for Ottoman Empire and its forces in one article. Pointing to titles of articles about wars does not illustrate your position here because they actually:

1. show common names of wars, which is not the issue here.
2. consistently refer to the Ottoman Empire and its forces as Ottoman.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please listen to what I am saying. The issue here is not the consistent use of one word over the other. The issue is in fact whether "Turkish" and variations thereof are acceptable to refer to the Ottoman Empire and agents thereof. As has been amply demonstrated, "Turkish" has been used in English for centuries, and it should not be deprecated because one editor things it's biased. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly that's what a lot of people are talking about, but it shouldn't be. Of course "Turkish" is acceptable, but so is "Ottoman". Sources upon sources could be cited to back this claim up (and have been), but so what? We still have to use one or the other in any given instance. The question is which is best, which varies from case to case. We cannot just rely on how often something is used in the sources for this. The case of "Russian" vs "Soviet" for World War II is comparable. I, who prefer "Ottoman" generally, also prefer "Soviet", and for the same reasons. (But again, it varies from case to case. There are reasons preferring "Ottoman" for the military of the post-Tanzimat empire that don't apply, say, to the Ottoman forces that threatened Europe in the 17th century.) Srnec (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I may not have made my point but those were examples of the wider use of Turkey in WPMILHIST. All Before Republic of Turkey was established Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you used wrong examples which show common names of wars which is not the issue here. This discussion is about term which should be used for Ottoman Empire and Military of the Ottoman Empire.

I would also like to clarify my position in this Ottoman vs. Turkish dispute which I already presented it at article's talk page (diff). Unless there is some specific reason (which I don't think exists in the case of ANZAC Mounted Division article) I strongly prefer consistent usage of the term "Ottoman" for Ottoman Empire and Military of the Ottoman Empire both across wikipedia and within articles because it is widely used in reliable sources and meets all WP:NAMINGCRITERIA criteria, unlike Turkey/Turkish.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

OK can you provide some examples of reliable English sources where Ottoman is used for the Sinai and Palestine or even the Gallipoli campaigns. The British, Australian and all the New Zealand official historians use Turkish. As do several other English language authors, even official German sources use Turkish. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That's too easy. Try Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I by the aforementioned Erickson. The question isn't whether one term or the other is "correct". Both are acceptable. The question is which is best. "Ottoman" is best because it is unambiguous. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably out of line here, but why not at the beginning of the article simply write "Ottoman Turks" in the article. Once "Ottoman Turks" has been established then throughout the rest of the article simply use "Turks" as a simplified term. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Turks in that sense would be an over-simplification, as it would be standing in place of all the different peoples who were part of the Ottoman Empire. --Rskp (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Srnec good example that book uses Turkish - Turkish Front etc 111 times and Ottoman 55 times. Kansas Bear - There is already a note added after first use of Turkish explaining its use. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a support/oppose vote to a) remove the POV dispute tag from ANZAC Mounted Division b) continue the use of "Turkish" over "Ottoman" where context is clearly in favour of this term.

1. Support – Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Support - seems to be a strong consensus that "Turkish" is perfectly fine in this context and in line with the sources. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support no surprise. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support where no more specific term is used by the majority of sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Mild Support with the proviso that the difference in names cited by sources be footnoted...as "Some sources refer to this as the Ottoman Army...blah...blah...blah...and others use the term Turkish Army...blah...blah...blah." Cuprum17 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Cuprum17 (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Looking over the discussion above and the one at Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Ottoman Empire/Turkey, Roslyn does not appear to have provided ANY example sources using "Ottoman" instead of "Turkish", compared to a ton of examples provided by Jim and others, so it's currently an unsupported personal view. The footnote you suggest may give undue weight to a minority view; and given that there are probably a handful of articles on the Ottoman Empire's involvement in WWI this would not be a practical solution. Thought it would seem for the disputed article in question, AustralianRupert already provided the proviso you requested here and applied here. To be honest, the "controversy" expressed appears to be entirely in Roslyn's mind, few seem to share it, so there's little point in indulging it with trivial footnotes. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   I stand corrected as I was not aware of the existence of the footnote. I like the manner in which Australian Rupert worded the footnote...a much more satisfactory approach to the question at hand. Thank you for your comment and explanation Marcus.Cuprum17 (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

6. Comment Support for a), Oppose for b).. There was related discussion held in May this year (link) about usage of term Nazi. This term was extensively used to describe German forces and country during WWII although " there was never any country called "Nazi Germany,". The justification for such extensive usage was that it was frequently used by sources because it "has become a convenient shorthand term among historians and journalists for Germany as it was in 1933-45." The conclusion of this discussion was that "The expression "Nazi German" will not be used in Military History Project articles." I think that it is necessary to resolve this "Ottoman vs. Turkish" issue at the same way, consistently for all MILHIST Project articles. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   How exactly are you suggesting this is related, Ad? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   In both cases regular army is referred to with colloquial terms (Nazi, Turkish).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   "Nazi" is a socio-political term directly relating to the following of a fascist leader's party ideals, and many history books are careful to discriminate between Nazis and unaffiliated Germans; the mistakes that have been made on Wiki are usually the fault of editor misconceptions, not their sources. "Turkish" is a recognised term for an ethnic group, just like "British", and as has been said before, both the Ottoman and British empires were multi-cultural, and neither "British" nor "Turkish" can really be considered a derogatory or colloquial term given how wide-spread their use is. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   Depending on the context some words can have formal but also a colloquial meaning. This discussion is not about British ethnic group or fascist ideology but about the term used in ANZAC Mounted Division to refer to the regular army of the Ottoman Empire. I proposed to resolve this "Ottoman vs. Turkish" (forces, troops, army, units...) consistently, not just for this article, but for all MILHIST articles, just like above mentioned "Nazi German" issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   In the case of the "Nazi German" issue, it was a call to stop the blanket use of "Nazi" against virtually anything German, and was simple to resolve, but also a widespread issue on Wiki. In this case, we only have one editor (User:Rskp) with a grudge against "Turkish" being used, and we're talking about an empire, not a single nation, so the matter is more complicated, and different nations under the Ottoman Empire are likely to have presented different units. I think it would be going too far for MILHIST to set arbitrary designations for each and every Turkish unit.. there is no "consistency" because it's a matter of context, not as simple as saying German=Nazi regardless of the unit or man, because "Turkish" is being used differently, and there are no political ramifications. I don't agree with setting a precedence for "Ottoman" or "Turkish", it's a case-by-case matter reliant on sources and the context of the article in which the term is being applied. Clearly, if someone like User:Rskp were to take the piss and disruptively challenge each and every article using "Turkish" despite the sources provided we would look to ANI to consider a topic ban. You cannot simply request that we "resolve" the matter of Ottoman vs Turkish when you consider the simple fact that there have been NO sources presented above or on the article talk page which supports "Ottoman", only "Turkish" by a vast majority. What you're asking us for is to consider a "ban" of the word "Turkish" much like "Nazi German", with "Ottoman" taking its place; this goes against WP:NOTCENSORED and a multitude of verifiable reliable sources using "Turkish", and is therefore not a reasonable request, and unlikely to succeed. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

   There are four points I would like to clarify here:

   • Consistency: "there is no "consistency" because it's a matter of context" - If editors here reach consensus not to have consistent terminology for the Military of the Ottoman Empire it would be consistently applicable to all articles about the Military of the Ottoman Empire. Wikipedia articles should be consistent both across wikipedia and within articles. If consensus is reached here not to have consistent terminology of the Military of the Ottoman Empire between the articles then it would be hard to justify consistent Turkish terminology within this particular article.
   • Context:I think that nobody yet presented valid and sourced arguments about the particular context in ANZAC Mounted Division article which would justify inconsistent terminology when it comes to Military of the Ottoman Empire (I sincerely apologize if I am wrong).
   • Sources, sources....: I think that most if not all support !votes here are based on the position "sources support the use of Turkey (and derivatives) in this context". What context? Has anybody researched sources before proclamation of Turkish victory? Just because the oppose party did not present a list of sources which support OE (with explanation based on its inherent SKY IS BLUE nature) that does not mean that sources do not use OE alternative. A quick GBS in case of Fourth Army (Ottoman Empire) (renamed to Turkish Fourth Army) in this article, shows that plenty of sources do support OE alternative. Turkish Fourth Army existed within Military of the Turkey (Timothy Edmunds; Marjan Malešič (1 January 2005). Defence Transformation in Europe: Evolving Military Roles. IOS Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-58603-541-9. The Turkish Fourth Army was equipped and deployed with a potential Aegean war with Greece in mind and John Malcolm Wagstaff (2002). Greece, ethnicity and sovereignty, 1820-1994: atlas and documents. Archive Editions. p. 111. ISBN 978-1-85207-895-9. the creation in1 975 of a new Turkish Fourth Army) so this unnecessary inconsistent and imprecise terminology could only mislead the readers.
   • WikiProject Ottoman Empire: I propose to consult members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire before making "final notes".

   Taking in consideration that term "Turkish" is not precise, but not inherently biased as it was before, I support removal of POV tag. Until sources are presented which support specific context of this article which requires use of Turkish instead of Ottoman term I am opposed to proposal b). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

   "with explanation based on its inherent SKY IS BLUE nature" – I don't know whether you meant this from yourself or were citing Rskp's use of "sky is blue", but as I've explained to them already, it's utter nonsense. Very little in history is "blue". You CANNOT expect near to 100% people in the world to be aware of an empire which disappeared 90 years ago. There is nothing inherently "blue" about Ottoman history whatsoever. I imagine, in some parts of the world, there are people who never receive an education in such history and thus have never heard if them; I imagine there are many in the world who can't even tell you where Turkey is on a map, let alone its dead empire. I think this "blue" fallacy needs to be stopped, because it shows a complete misunderstanding of what WP:BLUE represents. Virtually ALL history needs sourcing, whether you're talking about someone as well known as Hitler, Jesus, the British Empire or the Founding Fathers.. there is certainly no room to suggest that something like Ottoman history, which hardly claim to have international significance, is common knowledge or anywhere close to "blue". If we begin to introduce anything in history as "blue" we simply introduce low-standards with regards to how people cite things, because people will assume that just because they come from a certain region and know their past, suddenly everyone will know it. That's not how the world works, and Wiki can't make exceptions for anyone anywhere. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   • I of course agree that term "Ottoman Empire" used to refer to the Ottoman Empire does not need to be cited, just like you don't cite that sky is blue.
   • I don't think that anybody addressed the points I presented above (I again apologize if I am wrong).
     • What is this specific context of ANZAC Mounted Division article mentioned in point b) of the proposal?
     • What sources support this specific context which requires use of term Turkish instead of Ottoman? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

   "I of course agree that term "Ottoman Empire" used to refer to the Ottoman Empire does not need to be cited, just like you don't cite that sky is blue." – except that's not the point of this debate nor my comment, only your own ulterior motive to defame the term "Turkish" suggests it is. The debate at the ANZAC article is whether the Ottoman Army should be a referred to as "Turkish", nothing more; I see your off-tangent introduction of "ban the word Turkish across wiki" as WP:STONEWALLING the main focus of this topic, which is specific to the debate between Roslyn and Jim on one or two articles, but that's just me. You don't refer to an army by its Empirical name within the context if a battle situation, you refer to it by its most commonly-known national identity – Turkish Army, Turkish infantry, Turkish navy, etc. Just as you wanted "German soldiers" not "Nazis", these were "Turkish" soliders. You're obscuring the matter by assuming that the Ottoman Empire only has one name regardless of the manner in which it is being discussed, which is ludicrous. There are a ton of sources cited on the talkpage of the article in question.. I suggest you peruse them at your leisure to determine contextual relevance. I'm still waiting you to provide any sources that suggest that the word "Turkish" is both colloquial and derogatory, as these two words certainly represent a POV, but it only seems to be shared by you and Roslyn. Let's see some reliable sources on the matter shall we, instead of challenging the multitude of sources provided written by professional historians, I'd like you two amateur historians to show us some examples of "Turkish" being used in an anti-Ottoman manner. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

7. Support Seems acceptable. Intothatdarkness 16:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
8. Support It is clear that the sources support the use of Turkey (and derivatives) in this context. Zawed (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
9. Support the Ottoman Turks were an ethnic group that founded the Empire and ran it in 1914. A very important development in the decade before 1914 was that the "Young Turk" element came to power with the goal of minimizing non-Turkish roles. (for example, Greeks & Armenians were forced out of many private business they owned--see Erik J. Zürcher (2004). Turkey: A Modern History, Revised Edition. p. 126.) Historians have not had a problem with "Turkish" -- which covers the ethnic leadership (the generals), and the language of command of both the Empire and its army. The Arabs were under Turkish control & did not like it. Ditto the Greeks & Armenians. Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
10. Support The Ottomans were Turks. I appreciate Rksp's point, but we don't have a term for all the citizens of the Ottoman Empire. This is not unusual. Even today there is scarcely a European or Middle Eastern country without an important ethnic minority. And in Turkey, there is a deliberate policy of posting soldiers to areas far from where they come. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

    I would have said that "Ottoman" was a term for all the citizens of the Empire. See Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine by Michelle Campos. Yes, terms like "Hungarian" are ambiguous between the ethnic group and the nationality, but the term "Ottoman" (and "Ottoman citizen") was by the early 20th century certainly non-ethnic. See Ottomanism. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

11. Oppose the use of a colloquial term which covers up the diversity of the men who served in the Ottoman Army. They came from Turkey, certainly, but also from Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and from present day Israel.
    • Oppose the removal of the POV tag while the British Empire continues to be consistently referred to, but the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Army are not, and while the 5th Mounted Brigade is consistently referred to in full while the light horse and mounted rifles units are not.
    • Oppose as "the context is clearly in favour of this term" does not recognise "the sky is blue" status of the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Army. --Rskp (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

    Your constant [mis]use of "sky is blue" is a WP:DEADHORSE, or as I prefer to say, you're riding a bike with flat tyres. WP:BLUE means stating the obvious, and given that you still haven't provided a single source to back up your "Ottoman" claim, it remains unobvious as to where draw your conclusions and is therefore NOT blue! As a result, the POV is yours to support, not ours: the burden is yours, you challenged "Turkish" and a dozen sources have been given, now it's your turn to source "Ottoman" as legitimately. Until then you're facing a considerably consensus against you here, virtually a WP:SNOW storm, which will be closed in time, not dragged on for weeks.

    On 11 November 2013 your edit summary read "reinstate tag the use of Turkish is POV", therefore we can take it for FACT that the tag applies to the use of "Turkish" and that your comment above with regards "the 5th Mounted Brigade" is an attempt to drop a fly in the ointment or make a WP:POINT. Articles may not be held hostage based on false assertions, and if the consensus of this !vote favours its removal you will just have to bite a bullet and accept it. It is clear from the discussion at Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#POV that you seem intent on rabbiting the same opinion over and over, but you have not once cited any examples, given any sources, provided any evidence to favour any of the debates you're involved in. Jim has repeatedly asked you to review WP:POV guidelines, but I sense an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude as you simply come back bleating the same views without any signs of having read and understood what POV stand for in relation to your claims.

    Despite your background in WWI history, you either lack WP:COMPETENCE to handle Wikipedia, or simply enjoy your self-important WP:BATTLEGROUND position against Jim and members of MILHIST. Whatever it may be, the intention of this consensus is to put an end to the matter and closure to the ongoing war editing and tedious debate across that article's talkpage, ANI and here. Many of these amount to nothing more than WP:FILIBUSTER behaviour – repeatedly pushing viewpoints without bringing sources to back yourself up, and playing the victim when anyone from MILHIST gets involved being the biggest two concerns. I suggest you prepare yourself to cool down and learn some humility in your defeat.

    On a final note, I'd personally like to see you or Antidiskriminator provide a reliable source which clearly states that "'Turkish' is a colloquial term", as I'm having trouble believing that, and clearly so is everyone else. "Pommy" is a colloquial Aussie term for Brits, as you'll know and is supported by the OED's definition of Pommy. The same cannot be said for definition of Turkish however. I think you were grasping at straws by echoing Antidiskriminator's use of "colloquial", as I can't find one instance of you having ever used that word before now in other debates, so I doubt your sincerity more than your desperation to have the WP:LASTWORD as well as trying to WP:GAME the system with three "oppose" votes. You don't take us all for fools born yesterday do you? — Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

12. Support Additionally "Ottoman" is not only more inclusive than "Turk", it is also underinclusive since it refers to one band of Turks, excluding, for example, Seljuk Turks. It is also a dynastic term, referring to the descendants of Osman who ruled the empire and using Ottoman Empire rather than Turkey is akin to using Napoleonic Empire rather than French Empire. Either can be used, but there's no POV in the use. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Question Should an edit notice be inserted into the article in question to explain the consensus reached here? It could help alleviate some of these issues. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Being the main editor, for now, of that article and others using Turkish etc I would say yes.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks closeable to me. Any uninvolved coord willing to do that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which HMS Barracouta?

Which HMS Barracouta was lost with all hands on Madagascar in 1826? Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that there was another Barracouta not mentioned on that list? Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Colledge doesn't list any others than those we have in the shipname article. If you're trying to be precise about the loss in List of shipwrecks in 1826, the full paragraph from the Caldonian Mercury says "(From the Colombian Press Gazette) We are sorry to state, that a letter is in town, announcing the shocking intelligence that his Majesty's ship Barracouta has been wrecked on Madagascar, and all the crew, including Captain and officers, massacred by the natives; this letter came from Mauritius, and the melancholy fact rests on authority that cannot be doubted." I think the last sentence can be doubted and the source(s) are wrong and Barracouta was not wrecked and lost with all hands in 1826. Certainly at the time HMS Barracouta and HMS Leven were engaged in survey work off East Africa (see Narrative of voyages to explore the shores of Africa, Arabia, and Madagascar; performed in H.M. ships “Leven” and “Barracouta,” under the direction of Capt. W. F. W. Owen, R.N. (2v., London, 1833) ed H B Robinson ) but Barracouta returned home to be put up for sale in 1833 [1] If you find Narrative of voyages . . at archive.org at page 333 you'll find mention of East African natives attacking and destroying a British sloop and her crew but it's not Barracouta. NtheP (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Nthep, thanks for the reply. I did not see any reports contradicting the loss of the Barracouta, but will search the papers for 1826 using "Barracouta" as a search term. I'll delete the entry if sources confirm that she was not lost after all. Mjroots (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the entry from the list after further research. Mjroots (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Progress with Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists

Just to track our progress. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Click on [show] for progress bar
100% complete Backlog: Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists Goal: 0 articles Current: 2 articles Initial: 17,000 articles

Almost to 12%. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Back to the 12% mark. This would be a lot easier if several people did this. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, got it back down to the 12% mark. This would be a whole lot easier if multiple people helped out. As it is now, this category keeps getting larger inbetween editing secessions. Having to keep getting back down to the same mark time after time is not easy. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to help here. There has been some improvement though, I recall a few years ago this backlog was around 25,000 articles so to be where we are now is not a bad effort. This is against the backdrop of a significant increase in the total number of articles under the project's banner. Unfortunately this can be a tiresome task but I try to do a bit every now and then. Previously I have encouraged other editors to try and do 5 a day so as to spread the load and I will recommit myself to this where work commitments allow. Hopefully more of our project mbrs can as well. Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Got below the 14% mark. Having the do this myself is getting tiring. It would be a heck of a lot easier of multiple people did this. As Anotherclown said, even five articles per week. 65.64.177.103 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Now the total is back to 13.5%. It would be much, much, much easier to keep up with this category if multiple people helped with this. If the hundreds of people supposedly "active" with this project would just do five articles per week (less than one per day), this would be so much easier. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Starting to push it back to 14% but still a ways to go. I really, really, really, really, really need help with this. I need to take a break from this for a few days but if I do that, then the category will just continue to grow. So please, consider doing just one article per day. That will help so much. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Remember, this is a voluntary effort. You should really try to stop nagging. - Boneyard90 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If I am complaining, it is because I have been begging and begging and begging and begging for any kind of help with this. Yet this category continues to grow while I am away. If the dozens of participants would only fill out a checklist for just one article per day, then much of this category will be done. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As Boneyard pointed out, this is a volunteer project. People will do what they want to do, not what they are nagged to do. You like to work on this backlog, I, for example, like to write articles on obscure German warships no one will ever read. If you really want to get help with this, you should try to organize another backlog reduction drive. But you're not going to get significant help so long as you keep up the histrionics. Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Parsecboy: What do you mean by "articles on obscure German warships no one will ever read"? I read them...I personally have assessed more than one! Great articles, BTW. Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It was an attempt at levity through self-deprecation ;) Parsecboy (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I knew that...keep on writing them and I'll keep reading them, lol... I do have one question though. What will you work on when you have run out of German warships??? Cuprum17 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would take your begging a tad more seriously if you would register on Wikipedia. To me, it is the mark of a good editor to have some sort of personality so that the rest of the Project can relate. IP accounts, IMHO, should not be allowed to edit; just an opinion, of course. There are many things that I hope to accomplish on the MILHIST Project and filling out checklists is not the highest on my list. My time is limited by other worldly responsibilities and even if I filled out even one checklist a day, it would seriously cut into the content I hope to improve in articles which I have an interest in. Occasionally, when my mind is in a fog, I MIGHT tear through some checklists, but I really don't see that it accomplishes much. The key to Wikipedia is good, well written, accurate, referenced content on a wide range of subjects. Checklists don't really do anything for the reader of Wikipedia articles. Editors will tend to work on what interests them. If you are interested in filling out assessments then, by all means do so. When I submit an article for assessment, as a courtesy, I try to assess one or two or three on the same list if I can spare the time. I figure this is only fair and it assuages my guilt. Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt registering would help cut down on the backlog here. And yes, a single editor doing one checklist may not do much, but dozens of editors doing so would help. If you don't think checklists are that much help, then perhaps you should find a way of eliminating the checklists. Personally, I had assumed that since the checklists existed, then there must be some good reason for having them and that the project would have a special category for articles with incomplete checklists unless an incomplete list is a problem. 76.7.227.224 (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And P.S.: how many checklists could you guys have filled out in the time it took you to write all this down? 76.7.227.224 (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly one if done carefully, but your argument is a strawman. I do what I want with my time on here without direction from non-registered editors. I'm done here... ta-ta Cuprum17 (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't dismay 76, this unfortunately is how IP's are treated and looked upon in Wikipedia these days...as scum and villany not to be trusted. Just one of the many reasons I don't login much or edit outside discussions anymore. Just take a look at Procseebot happily blocking hundreds of IP's a day to ensure IP's are eventually unable to edit and people have to create a throwaway account just so that they can update a typo to an article and Wikipedia can have some false metric that X new editors created an account. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Could some uninvolved eyes look in at Talk:Neville Chamberlain?

This discussion here. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Are lists/bullet points etc OK in leads?Keith-264 (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I can't imagine a case where they would be required. Could you give me an example? Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone put them here Nivelle Offensive and here Battle of Passchendaele, I thought that the MOS took a dim view.Keith-264 (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's an outright ban on them in leads, but the general guidance on embedded lists applies, as does WP:Lead etc.; their use in this way in these two articles certainly goes against that MOS guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Overall, prose is just preferred over lists, for example WP:Manual of Style#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Those introductions are far too long anyway. If the author wants to write a preface, they should separate it from the introduction Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Another backlog reduction drive

Any chance of getting another backlog reduction drive started along these lines? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

G'day, this is currently under discussion here. Please feel free to join the conversation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow invitation to kick-the-tires

Hey all, We've reached the stage with Flow where it's relatively stable, and we'd like to invite you to take some time to try it out and chase bugs. It currently lives on a staff-run test server, which means it isn't hooked up to Single User Login - you can either edit anonymously or, preferably, create a new account under your current username.

The software has a minimal set of features at the moment; normal discussions with wikitext and templates should work fine (although Quiddity has only imported a few hundred templates), but there are some known bugs (and features that we're working on this fortnight) with the software. We're not looking to deploy Flow to enwiki in its current form, nor asking you to give your seal of approval to that.

What we'd like is for you to use the software, test it out and let us know two things:

1. If there are any bugs (you can report them here);
2. What changes or features you'd need added, to be personally comfortable with deploying it on your WikiProject (which you can explain here)

On the off chance that Flow is really, really broken for you, to the point where you can't post (maybe a browser issue?) you can of course use the enwiki talkpage for both purposes. If you have any questions about the test, you can post them there too :). We're going to be holding this testing open for a week to allow people to really hammer on the software, although we may not be around Thursday or Friday (it's Thanksgiving). If not, don't worry: we'll reply to you when we return.

Thanks! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It would be great if more editors would test out the current setup, and give feedback (there, here, anywhere!). The devs and designers need to know what you're thinking, and what you're missing/wanting (and what you're appreciating!).

Also, you might like to glance through these 2 test pages that I created on that server: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hampshire and Talk:River_source which I copied across a few weeks/days ago. I copied them across diff-by-diff by going through the history, and used a variety of accounts (randomly in the first, and more rigorously in the second), so hopefully that's a fairly accurate representation of how it might look (except for the clustered times).

Thanks again, –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Country disambiguation in unit titles

There is currently an open RFC at Talk:13th Airborne Division (United States)#Requested move wanting to move the article title to 13th Airborne Division on the ground it does not need disambiguating as there are no other 13th Airborne Division articles. Does the project have any guideline or consensus on such cases? There are other divisions in this situation, for example 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom). SpinningSpark 09:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, just found it myself in your MOS, but I'll leave the link to the discussion here. SpinningSpark 09:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Doe anyone look at these? It would be nice to get some feedback. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles on air aces

Two AfDs which are relevant to the project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur William Hammond‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Victor Gascoyne. They raise wider issues. Essentially, should we be keeping articles on air aces who are only notable for being air aces? -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The requirement to have a standalone article is notability as determined by having a couple or more people write about you at length (summarizing the GNG there a bit). If there are articles that don't have that coverage, they go and if they have the sources they stay - whether they are of a pilot or a pieman. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Being a flying ace establishes notability in and of itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That's been my understanding as well, I think the question is whether we have sufficient reliable sources to verify that they were aces. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. However both of these articles are in need of an expansion Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:MILPEOPLE doesn't give ace as an example of those who "almost always have sufficient coverage". Is there a specific discussion of aces? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but it is still clearly accepted practice to keep articles on all aces, whether they are notable in another way (e.g. through number of decorations, later achieving high rank or becoming notable in civilian life) or not. Wikipedia does sometimes establish de facto notability for a class of articles in this way, as per the accepted practice of keeping all articles on secondary schools. Despite being constantly challenged by a handful of editors, the de facto consensus of notability has not yet come close to being overturned. This seems to be a similar situation, where it has become accepted practice to keep all articles on a particular subject. Putting articles up for deletion piecemeal serves no useful purpose in my opinion. The issue does merit discussion though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

re MILPEOPLE, I still fail to see why we regard a footballer with one professional game or a very minor rapper as unchallengeably notable, yet not someone awarded a George Cross. I can see the Waily Fail editorial now: Foul-mouthed rapper awarded a featured biography but Wikipedia declares our centenarian Great War heroes as not "notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

MILPEOPLE is a guide "to provide recommendations regarding the notability of topics" and specifically references the GNG - which is what AFDs are suppposed to be measured against - saying "In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Perhaps in other areas of Wikipedia, less challenge of borderline notability goes on; doesn't mean we should be less thorough. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We do regard someone with the George Cross (or the Victoria Cross) as unchallengeably notable, as a recipient of the nation's highest award for non-combat (or combat) gallantry! We also regard someone with two or more DSOs, CGCs, DCMs, CGMs or GMs as notable. We do not regard someone with a single second- or third-level decoration as automatically notable, however, as there are hundreds of thousands of them around the world. Personally, I believe anyone with three should be considered notable, as that is pretty unusual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Intelligence and WikiProject Espionage

WikiProject Intelligence articles is getting mixed up with WikiProject Espionage articles. For example there are several articles that have WikiProject Intelligence on it's talkpage, yet when in editing, it comes up as WikiProject Intelligence. This has me confused. I realized that WikiProject Intelligence is part of the WikiProject Military History, how could someone differentiate between "Intelligence" gathering such as people, and agencies ... and people and agencies who are into "Espionage"? That is my question. In some cases there is both WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Intelligence, therefore listing the article as having two WikiProject Espionage and not having "Intelligence" in the WikiProject Military History. That is the only outcome I could see is adding WikiProject MILHIST to the talkpage and leaving articles that are related to espionage and/or intelligence having "Intel" selected for the WP:MILHIST and having WikiProject Espionage as a separate one. Adamdaley (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This is what I mean: Talk:Christian Andreas Käsebier. Is he notable for only intelligence or notable for espionage? There are plenty more with this error. Adamdaley (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Espionage seems a rather narrow topic for an entire Wikiproject, especially as many of the most successful "spies" of the last 70 years have been signals intelligence analysts and code breakers working out of fairly comfortable and entirely safe offices. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You have a point there. In the end, people such as Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher during World War II and "Cold War" can be classed as "espionage" since people don't really get convicted of "intelligence". While I do know however there are Agencies which have WikiProject Intelligence, which in this case is correct, they do collect intelligence. However how many agencies are convicted for espionage? Really, they want the intelligence in the end. In the end, I'm just trying to clear up this incorrect type of banner which gives a false reading since WikiProject Intelligence comes up as "WikiProject Espionage". Of course this could be easily put under WP:MILHIST banner as "Intel" which of course makes more sense instead of having WikiProject Intelligence banner separately, how active is that WikiProject? Adamdaley (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II has been nominated for FAC. All comments are welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ninja#Gorbylev

I invite you to participate in the discussion. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"fighting machine"

The usage of Fighting machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and fighting-machine is under discussion, see talk:Tripod (The War of the Worlds). "fighting machine" is currently used for a real world military topic. "Tripod" is a science fiction topic. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Vitalian (general) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Vitalian (general); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Audie Murphy honors and awards needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Audie Murphy honors and awards; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review for Glina massacres needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Glina massacres; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Navarino

It would be appreciated if all vessels lost in the Battle of Navarino were added to the List of shipwrecks in 1827. Mjroots (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

talk:Minesweeper (ship)#Requested move 2

I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation question, HM Marine Forces/Royal Marines

A question on the correct disambiguation for biographical articles on Marine officers and other ranks who sailed with the First Fleet to Australia in 1787-88. They were members of what later became known as the Royal Marines, but it was only styled as that name from 1802. Per the article on History of the Royal Marines between 1755 and 1802 (the relevant period of service for First Fleet Marines) it was known as "Her Majesty's Marine Forces." So should the disambiguation for these articles be:

• John Smith (Royal Marine) - the best known name and the one used on the few pre-existing articles for these marines, but historically inaccurate;
• John Smith (HM Marine Forces) -- historically accurate but a bit clunky;
• John Smith (Marine) - the simplest option but open to confusion with the US Marines; or
• John Smith (British Marine) - a catchall, but less accurate than the second option above.

Any of them is fine by me, but as there will likely be about 15 of these articles I'd like to get some views on a standard name. Euryalus (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)