Talk:Military history

External links section removed

1. International Bibliography of Military History of the International Commission of Military History – from Brill.nl
2. Journal of Chinese Military History – from Brill.nl
3. Military History Encyclopedia – at the UK's HistoryOfWar.org
4. H-WAR, daily discussion group for historians – from Michigan State University Department of History, H-Net Humanities & Social Sciences Online
5. WarHistoryOnline.com
6. MilitaryHistoryOnline.com
7. MilitaryHistory.org
8. American Society for Military History
9. Journal of Military History, the quarterly journal of the Society for Military History
10. Web Sources for Military History – from AmericanHistoryProjects.com
11. Online Exhibitions – The Canadian War Museum

Without even looking at the content I'm seeing obvious problems.

Redundant links: 1 & 2, 8 & 9.

Off topic links: 4, 11

Generally the burden rests on those seeking inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"Without even looking at the content" - Seriously? Well, that's your problem right there.

Rjensen has stated in his edit summary that he "checked each one and each one deals with military history in appropriate fashion". So it would seem this issue is moot.

But he also asked; "is there a specific one for which there is a specific complaint?" - which you can't answer because you haven't even bothered to examine the content yourself.

I would suggest you drop this, (and certainly stop edit-warring over it) and move on to better things. - wolf 17:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Seriously. Yes, it's a problem, but not in the way you present it. These are blatant problems, so why look further? The blatant problems are still there. If there's some special case where an exception to policy is warranted, then someone needs to make it clear why. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki should be responsive to helping our readers find resources that meet their needs. In history I think the majority of major articles have useful links--I note that Ronz erased all of them and did not suggest a single new one. Let's be familiar with the activities of people involved in military history--they join, talk, read, collaborate and visit sites and museums. Their needs are what this very short list caters to. #1 covers the world and 2 covers China in much greater bibliographical detail. They are obviously not redundant. #4 is the single most useful site for military history--over 1000 military historians subscribe and it posts every week news on new items and meetings as well as reviews. I've subscribed for two decades. Many military historians use military museums and many are employed in one; #11 is an excellent representative. #8 is a scholarly society and #9 is a scholarly journal--both are important for military history work. Rjensen (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I brought up WP:NOT and WP:EL with my first removal of the information. As far as I can tell, they are being ignored completely. We can't create consensus in this manner. The problems I've identified are blatant ELNO issues. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I already quoted wp:EL and will repeat it: What can normally be linked ....Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject.... That fits these websites very well in my opinion. WP:EL goes on: Links normally to be avoided lists 19 categories, NONE of which fit any of these links in my opinion. Ronz does not tell us how any of the links here fit any of the 19 no-nos. Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

From the lede of EL, The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

The bottom line is that such articles such broad topics generally don't have much in the way of an External links section beyond a link to a directory site.

With such a broad topic, ELNO#1 and #13 problems are common, and that's what we have here. The links should be to unique resources: the redundant pairs I point out are not. The links should be to sites about Military history in general, and we agree that some of the links do not. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I have specified the value of each site you attacked. You state that ELNO criteria and 13 are suspected. No details given. avoid#1 does not fit (the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article nothing is "merely repeated."-- for example several sites have scholarly articles and book reviews. avoid#13 (Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject:) As I have just explained, they are all directly related to the topic. Try #4 H-WAR and explain how it is disqualified--it has commissioned and posted 46,000 book reviews in military history. Rjensen (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we're simply not communicating, while ELBURDEN is being ignored. I appreciate the focus on just #4, but I hope you won't be offended if I delay responding in the hope that time will help the situation.

Focusing on the end goal: In my experience, we should aim for one or two directories or sites with very good directories. That's all. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

our end goal is to help readers and I suggest "Less is more" is not helpful. Ronz makes the strange claim that The bottom line is that such articles such broad topics generally don't have much in the way of an External links section That is false claim made without looking. I took a look at the numbers :

• Military history has eleven external links
• Economic History has 24 external links
• Historiography has eleven
• History of China has twelve
• History of France has ten
• History of medicine has twenty
• History of slavery has fifteen
• History of the British Army has nine
• History of the United States Navy has seventeen
• Political history has six
• Social History has ten
• Women's history has ten
  • look at some Military History Project "Featured" articles
  • Battle of Midway, 12 external links
  • George S. Patton. 9
  • Harry S Truman, 15
  • Hungarian Revolution of 1956, 18
  • Jefferson Davis, 10
  • Joan of Arc, 21 external links. Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE.

If you can point to any relevant discussions or comments, those might help.--Ronz (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The argument that it's a broad topic and so it shouldn't have any/many links seems backwards. To me, that justifies a broader selection of links, and I believe this list is well within reason. Even if it were true that other broad topic articles don't have many ELs (which does not appear so), OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
As to the specifics, all the links seem relevant, and I'll trust the opinion of the comments above that they are reasonable sources – it's not really my field, but they look useful. 1 and 2 concern me, as they appear to be paywalled and not content (only bibs). 9 seems to be a more specific link within 8, so 8 could probably go (applying parallel reasoning for not wikilinking like Danville, Illinois). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I took this to the ANI page. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

seems backwards It justifies a broad selection of links (and categorizes) to other articles in Wikipedia. Those articles are going to have external links specific to their topics. There's no lack of external links if we're covering a topic, it's sub-topics, and related topics well.

To avoid ELNO#1 problems, the link needs to be to a site that has information that still meets ELYES#3 criteria (relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article...), but not already in the article and it cannot be added to the article.

The broader a topic, the more likely that it's main aspects will be well covered by Wikipedia and what few select external links we choose, especially if we find an external link to a good directory. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

which "good directory" do you have in mind that will do a better job for readers? Rjensen (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I am assuming that they can be found if we don't already have one that simply hasn't been identified as such. If not, https://curlie.org/Society/History/By_Topic/Wars_and_Conflicts/ seems to be the most relevant I can find on Curlie. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No that has a very narrow perspective -- it is a list of battles. And it is not nearly as good as one you erased, ["Military History Encyclopedia on the Web"] Battles have a minor role here--please read the article!--it is about how historians in the last 2000+ years from Greeks to 21st century have developed ways to study many military topics. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying one to use. --Ronz (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Re "Less is more" is not helpful. I never said that. It's a strawman, and misrepresents my position while ignoring policy. It's not "less is more", it's follow NOT and EL, focus on our readers rather than the researchers that are here, focus on creating a better encyclopedia and better coverage of the topics within this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Re ref#4: I'm sure it's a useful resource for finding the latest thought and commentary in the research community, but that's not our focus nor audience. I wonder if some editors might consider it ELNO#10. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

While we're still mired in addressing blatant NOT/EL problems, I looked through the contents of them all. It's worse that I expected, including a COI violation that should have been disclosed.

I didn't search each site to see what external resources they list and how they organize them.

I'm unclear why historyofwar.org was mentioned as a good directory of external resources, nor why the authors of the site should be considered experts.

Ironically, americanhistoryprojects.com appears to be a useful directory. I expect we can get others to agree so the COI can be put to rest. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Less is More" is a pattern of behavior, not a verbal statement. It applies to situations when an editor always removes information and never adds any new information. In this case its a matter of removing all the information provided. that appears to me to violate the basic principle of Wikipedia which is the encouragement to add new material of value and interest to the topic at hand. people research military history are certainly invited to join in use Wikipedia – in fact its official policy that we have a military history project with over 1000 people subscribed. Ronz should subscribe to find out what's going on in the field of military history on Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)