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 2024 coordinator election has begun with voting open until 29 September. The September 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 Battle of Saipan • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • The Motherland Calls • Battle of Lake Providence • Jochi • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Robert Poore • Chagatai Khan Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS Peer reviews Henry Clay Work • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Sark Good article nominees Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Felek al-Din Dündar • Roswell incident • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Eleanor of Castile • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Sack of Delhi (1757) • Black and Tans • Diaspora Revolt • Peruvian cruiser Lima • Castlereagh–Canning duel • Ottoman minelayer Intibah • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Piri Reis • Eunus • Patrick J. Ryan (chaplain) • George Preece • Francis L. Sampson • HMS Regulus (1785) • Spanish Christian–Muslim War of 1172–1212 • Italian Campaign of 1796–1797 Good article reassessments Battle of the Yarmuk • Battle of Plataea • Siege of Szigetvár • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Manley Power • USS Texas (BB-35) • George W. Bush Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,536) • only work on referencing and citation (43,241) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,867) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,904) • work on structure (31,876) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,176) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,944) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (5) • assessment as lists (7) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (6) • task forces added (5) • attention to task force coverage (655)

Merging articles for multilateral Angolan/Namibian conflict

Howzit all, under the advice of User:Dodger67 I decided to take this topic here for discussion, as it may set a precedent for the coverage of other multilateral conflicts. There are two closely related articles: South African Border War and Namibian War of Independence, which ostensibly cover separate but closely intertwined conflicts. At least, I would argue that they are separate. In South Africa, the "border war" is a very general term that covers both the South African counter-insurgency campaign in Namibia (the independence war) and its intervention in the Angolan Civil War. As there has been some recent confusion over the two - on which I have elaborated more on here I'd wonder if we should merge both of the articles into one as they deal with some of the same topic matter. On the other hand, keeping the articles separate would mean splitting the general conflict into two phases, one which could be covered adequately with its own article. What's the consensus here? Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Another article is also relevant - Angolan War of Independence.

A brief summary of the conflict(s) for folks not familiar with the history:

Mid 1960s - Three mutually hostile Angolan independence movements start guerrilla campaigns against the Portuguese colonial government, fighting between the three movements also occurs. The Namibian independence movement (SWAPO) use the opportunity created by the loss of border control by the Portuguese to start cross-border attacks against the South African authorities in South West Africa (Namibia).

1975 - The Portuguese abruptly leave Angola (and their other African colonial possessions) due to their domestic political situation. Consequently the largest of the three independence movements (MPLA) seize control of the capital and most of the country's territory. Meanwhile the United States has covertly been supporting the smallest of the movements (FNLA) from neighbouring Zaire. The South Africans enter Angola in force and penetrate almost to the capital. They support the pro-Western/anti-Communist UNITA movement which has established control over part of Southern Angola (along the SWA/Namibian border).

The Soviet Union and other Sovbloc states provide limited support to the MPLA - which later expands to a large Cuban expeditionary force, which is mainly Soviet sponsored. The anti-communist South African government justify their intervention in Angola (and alliance with UNITA) as "keeping the Red-peril" out of their sphere of influence while also attacking the SWAPO/PLAN "rebel" bases in Angola - SWAPO is aligned with the MPLA. Communist/socialist hegemony in Southern Africa is basically complete except for South Africa and SWA/Namibia - and until 1980 also Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

Throughout the late 1970s and 80s South Africa engages in various raids/invasions into southern Angola - to aid their UNITA allies and inhibit the cross-border guerrilla insurgency of SWAPO/PLAN. The Angolan civil war between MPLA and UNITA continues - the FNLA disappears from the scene with some of their remnants joining South Africa as a "foreign legion" type of unit.

In 1987-88 the MPLA/Cuban forces start a major offensive aimed at unseating UNITA from their control of south-eastern Angola. The South Africans respond with their biggest intervention since 1975. The South African/Unita force manage to stop the MPLA/Cuban advance and a fairly static situation is established. Meanwhile in Eastern Europe various communist regimes are crumbling and even the Soviet Union is under stress. Consequently the Soviets no longer sponsor the Cubans. In South Africa internal and external pressure sees the Apartheid system starting to unravel and economic and political realities make it impossible for the government to escalate their Angolan intervention force to break the stalemate. Likewise the Cubans having lost the financial and materiel backing of the Soviets are also unable to expand their expeditionary forces. Multilateral peace negotiations result in the exit of Cuba and South Africa from Angola and independence for Namibia under a democratic parliamentary system of government. SWAPO, having been largely ineffective in battle, nevertheless win the election. In Angola however the UNITA movement breaks the brief peace and continue their insurgency against the ruling MPLA for several years.

I hope this is a satisfactory summary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the complexity of the situation, & as someone with only casual familiarity, can I suggest an alternative? Namely, create a "master page" covering the whole situation with some (but not a lot of?) detail, to give an overview for those unfamiliar (& I'd include myself), while leaving the two existing pages as "daughter" pages, for those wanting more. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps South African Border War could fill the role of a "master page", with the daughter pages being Namibian War of Independence and a new "South African intervention in the Angolan Civil War" to differentiate between the two? --Katangais (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

But the South African Border War and "South African intervention in the Angolan Civil War" are one and the same thing. As I see it the issue here is basically that the Namibian War of Independence is relegated to the status of a minor sideshow, and Namibian editors simply don't like it. Unfortunately the numbers and scale of events plainly confirm that the activities of SWAPO/PLAN really were a minor sideshow - a meercat pretending to participate in a clash between bull elephants. SWAPO only very rarely even managed to put a battalion-sized unit in the field, the vast majority of their combat actions were sub-platoon sized. Half a dozen men crossing the border on foot, laying a few landmines, then shooting up a civilian farmstead and subsequently getting hunted down by airborne or motorised South African forces. PLAN was quite simply the most unsuccessful "rebel" army of the 20th century. They literally never won a single contact with South African forces - at any scale. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(Coming from Wikipedia:WikiProject Namibia) I don't see the horse you intend to beat. Who but Namibian government argues that Namibian independence was brought about by successful PLAN military action? However, HIST≠MILHIST, and Namibian independence should be explained somewhere, in its context of three dependent developments: political, economical, and military. I have an age-old laundry list of events here: User:Pgallert/Independence of Namibia that could maybe become such an article, occupying Independence of Namibia which is currently a redirect. From my point of view, Namibian War of Independence can be a redirect to South African Border War with the Namibian skirmishes described somewhere in a subsection there. That would entail, though, that the outcome of the border war is not flatly stated as "Namibia became independent" because that event was more influenced by economical and political events than by military action, sources in my user space. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been asked by Katangais to express my opinion here. I support a merging, as the Namibian War of Independence article is currently misleading as far as combatants are concerned. That being said, some users will probably not appreciate such a move and call POV, which admittedly is a bit hard to argue. Perhaps some Namibian users should be invited to state their opinion? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mikro. While contension from editors in Namibia (other than User:Pgallert obviously) is a worrying issue in case of a merge, I haven't seen any editor calling WP:POVFORK on this one yet, and those two articles have been separate for a long time. I'll link to this discussion on the South African and Namibian WikiProjects and see what comes up. --Katangais (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors from Namibia? Lol, there is Namiba, there is Chtrede, and there is Enots86. No idea what their stand on the topic is, but that's about all we've got down here. --Pgallert (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion these two articles should remain separate as they fundamentally cover different events. The Border War was an extensive and complex military operation and can't be relegated to few paragraphs in a merged article. The use of the word war in the title of Namibian War of Independence should be discussed - Did it ever get big enough to be called a War? Personally I think History of Namibia#The struggle for independence tells the story far better than Namibian War of Independence. Why not just call it that? Gbawden (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Gbawden that the Border War is a topic large and complex enough to merit it's own page and that the issue of independence is a sub-page/paragraph of the History of Namibia. BoonDock (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What about - as Pgallert and Mikro suggested - simply redirecting NWOI to the Border War instead of creating a merged article? The latter could stay the same. That would put to bed the initial concern about whether the two were in fact separate conflicts, which I'm increasingly inclined to believe they're not. If Gbawden or yourself thinks they are, by all means elaborate here. --Katangais (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

TCG Anatolia

An article on TCG Anatolia was created a few days ago, and appears to have been created from material taken from the Turkish Naval Forces article, per this diff. It needs attention, including rewriting the prose, adding cats, source checking, etc. I've removed a {{good article}} tag and photo of Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61), but these will probably come back again. Creating warship articles is out of my area of wiki-expertise, so any attention from someone more familiar with these types of articles would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I gave the prose a quick once over, but it's not my usual area either. Gecko G (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. A few other editors have dropped by there also, so thanks too. - BilCat (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It was starting to look like an edit war over the F-35B thing, hopefully the source I just gave can settle things down. All the other numbers (ie troops, complement, etc.) could still use some sourcing.Gecko G (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The source given, which has numerous English-competence issues, really does not state that the F-35B will be deployed, only that the ship may have that capability. However, I'll leave that to others, as I have difficulty interacting with incompetent users (English language or otherwise). Note that the name of the article may also be incorrect, as we normally don't translate names. - BilCat (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

wow, you're fast. I had an alert about your thank-you before my browser had even finished loading the updated page. .

Considering that it is still only in the planning stage, I don't see how any source can say what is, or will be, deployed, but a source stating a planned capability seems like an excellent source to use (obviously, until and unless things change as the planning and construction progresses).

I was wondering about the article name, as it seemed wrong to me, but as I stated above ship articles are not my area of expertise.

What English-competence issues are you refering to in the source? It's a news blog so yes the grammer is not perfect, but it's an english language source (Plymouth University), not a translation.

cheers, Gecko G (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Further, to my knowledge, Turkey isn't ordering the F-35B STOVL model, but the F-35A CTOL version only. Again, the source doesn't address that. - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect that particular source to address that, since that's a different topic. It is a point to consider for the article, but I'm not sure how best to address it. Gecko G (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread the ref in the article. The source you added appears fine. Yeah the grammar isn't perfect, such a sky jump" and aircrafts". Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I also want to add that the user repeatedly added the highly dubious , unsourced claim that TAI TFX was to be operated from the ship. This is poppycock as there is nothing published about the TFX being designed in a STOVL variant, which is why I have questions regarding the user's competence beyond just the English language. - BilCat (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

US Navy Cruiser Articles - Inconsistent

In reading a number of articles related to US Navy Cruisers of the WWII era I have noticed many inconsistencies among the articles often creating contradictions from one article to the next. And the displacements are inconsistently reported in tons, long-tons, or short-tons -- it would be great if we could have a consistent standard. It seems that US ships might follow a US convention of short-ton, but that makes comparisons among navies more difficult.

I've also noticed that a number of lists of ships or classes at WP use class names which are not consistent with the class names at the articles and that the dates of ships are sometimes commission dates and other times launch date. For the most part this is unimportant, but in some cases lists or articles use the original name of the ship as the title, even though the name was reassigned even prior to launch date or commission date, so dating becomes more critical.

I wonder whether a group might review these articles from time to time to provide continuity? --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Long tons should be the default, since that was the standardized unit of measure set by the Washington Naval Treaty. Can you give some examples of inconsistent class names? Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes good sense! I noticed it among the last 10 or so classes of US Navy gun-cruisers (heavy and light). Kevin Murray (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some of those late cruisers had their class designations changed at points in their careers, when they were rebuilt as guided-missile cruisers (the 'new' class name for converted ships becoming that of the first conversion) - is this the source of the 'inconsistency' perhaps? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

On reviewing, I only see one article/chart specifying short-tons: Des Moines-class cruiser. Others use tons or long-tons, perhaps not so much inconsistency as ambiguity? Perhaps we could assume that "tons" means "long-tons" but.... Kevin Murray (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I updated Des Moines-class cruiser to clarify LT and converted numbers. Thanks for your advice and assistance.Kevin Murray (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I updated all the US cruiser-class articles for post WWI vessels to relfect long-tons as either the articles on the ships and/or source materials indicated long-tons. Also tried to make the displacements constistent between the ship articles and the class articles. Kevin Murray (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for Nike-X needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Nike-X; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Bruce Campbell Hopper. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Women in the military article

I've started a discussion concerning the suitability of some content in this article at Talk:Women in the military#US centric material. Comments from other editors would be great. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Battle of the River Forth ‎

I reviewed Draft:The Battle of the River Forth at Articles for Creation and declined it. Since it describes an air conflict between Germany and the United Kingdom in 1939, before the 1940 fall of France led to the Battle of Britain, it appeared to me to be some sort of WP:HOAX or alternate history. However, since this is a very active WikiProject, I was wondering if some experienced editor could take another look at it and see if my first thought (that it isn't true) is correct. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this happened (though I can't assess the details, I know the basic story). I was concerned by the style (non-encyclopedic)and also the editor could do with some advice on how to handle citations. Can anyone with a WWII specialism offer a bit of mentoring? Monstrelet (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And, as a PS, given the heavy reliance on one source, maybe do a copyvio check? Monstrelet (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought that this would have happened just as the Polish blitzkrieg was being wrapped up, but this was just another case of Hitler dividing his forces unwisely. (He should never have divided his forces against Great Britain and Russia. Neither should Napoleon have done so. Napoleon didn't have Hitler to learn from, and Hitler, unlike Napoleon, was no student of history.) I agree as to your comments on the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The strategic motivation was trying to damage the British fleet using air power I think. There were raids on Scapa Flow at a similar time. Monstrelet (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I would question the title: "battle" seems a little grandiose. Is there a RS to say that is the correct designation? I note one of the sources calls it "Air attack in the Firth of Forth" which seems more appropriate. Hamish59 (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no sources in google books that mention it as a battle. The action is usually described as an air raid or an air attack. Kges1901 (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree battle seems odd given the scale of the action. However, in the Phoney War, the press came up with all manner of overblown phrases because of the slow pace of the war - could this be an example? There is a similarly scaled set of roughly contemporary air actions covered in the article Battle of the Heligoland Bight (1939) which may give a precedent. Monstrelet (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick check reveals that though raid or attack seem the most common, there are examples of battle e.g. http://www.eliehistory.com/explore/battle-forth-16-oct-1939/ and http://www.fifeserve.com/battle-of-the-forth-bridge.html Monstrelet (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Barking Creek here's another contemporary hyperbolic name.Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Unas Article

Article: Unas.

What Task forces (periods and conflicts) is this article under so I can add it to the talkpage? Adamdaley (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Biography and Middle-Eastern are the only applicable taskforces by the look of it. Too old for Classical. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Iran seizes two American boats & crew

Heads up, breaking on BBC News. Iran has seized two American boats and their crew. It is possible that there could be an article about this incident, and said article would be of interest to this WP. Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Depends. If it develops to the scale of the 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel, an article may be justified. If it turns out to be much smaller scale (a couple of days in the news, hopefully happy resolution, no ongoing reporting), a mention in the relevant ship/unit article would be better (see the December 2004 attempted seizure of a boarding party from HMAS ADelaide (FFG 01)). -- saberwyn 09:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A huge overlooked news

People's Republic of China military reform - I nanostubed it and wikilinked into several articles, merely to bring attention to the topic. A have neither expertise nor interest in the subject; only surprised how Wikipedia missed it. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It might be news (there's a wiki for that), but is it an article? I've tagged it as stub and for notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)