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 Tranche XXIV of the WikiProject coordinators has been elected. The October 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 German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Otto Hahn • Boot Monument • Roswell incident • Busbridge War Memorial • Battle of Big Black River Bridge • Khalji Revolution Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Lockheed YF-22 • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. Peer reviews 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Sark • Battle of Chunj • War of the Antiochene Succession Good article nominees Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Dabney Coleman • Crusading movement • Black and Tans • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • Federalist No. 29 • Mongol invasion of Khorasan • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Ian Morrison (RNZAF officer) • Charles the Bold • James Alexander Ulio • Central Powers • Mordechai Schlein • Short Sunderland in New Zealand service • Te Pōrere Redoubts Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • Hans-Ulrich Rudel Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,916) • only work on referencing and citation (43,225) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,298) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,909) • work on structure (31,999) • only work on structure (341) • work on grammar (8,273) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (33,053) • only work on supporting materials (1,290) • assessment (132) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (15) • assessment checklists completed (102) • task forces added (2) • attention to task force coverage (654)

Military Biography importance

How come there are over 30,000 articles in the bio task force that aren't rated for importance? 76.7.231.130 (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

MILHIST doesn't use the 'Importantance' ranking, I believe? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are 7,500 articles in that task force that do have importance rankings. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are derive from the WP:WPBIO tags on the articles. It's an artifact of the joint task force structure; the Biography WikiProject uses the ratings, but we don't. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kirill once mentioned something about, if WP:Biography project tags articles within their "importance" scale, but the articles are also in the WP:MilHist scope, we see the importance results on the Assessment tables here. Something like that... Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Speak of the Devil... Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just checked the American Civil War and American Revolutionary War task forces and their articles are divided into importance rankings as well. So if importance rankings isn't part of MILHIST then something fishy is going on here. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That case would be Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Buggie111 (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Any way of getting the two separated? 76.7.231.130 (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I seriously don't think so. Buggie111 (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps something could be done about the "coding" behind these wikiprojects which allows for the "spillover". 76.7.231.130 (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Or is this a problem which can't be fixed? 76.7.231.130 (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not really broken or a problem to be fixed.. it's just superfluous to this WikiProject. On the optimistic side, it may even have the effect that editors unaware that we don't use it but seeing articles as "Low" in importance try to add more notable information to them thus increasing their quality for MilHist and possibly importance for other projects. Other than that, I'd say just ignore it.. doesn't harm the project whether it shows or not. It's a highly speculative scale anyway.. personally, I'd hate to have to determine who or what is more important from a historical perspective, because what's unimportant to me, might be crucial to others, depending on their interest, culture, etc. Better just to rate by quality, I think the whole idea of expressing importance is pointless anywhere on Wiki, and can only lead to conflict. We do right to ignore it. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I didn't realize it would affect this project when I created those since it isn't in the template coding and the template doesn't use the WPBannershell. I think its because its in Milhist subcategory tree. I could try changing it to fall under WPUS to see if that makes them go off this project. To answer a comment above, to me, its more what the importance of the article is to the project than to the topic necessarily. But thats just my opinion. So ys as someone said above its very subjective and really only gives a bit of a guide to help focus efforts that's all.--Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

In any joint project, you would have the difficulty of criteria. For example, an article on JFK would make most people's list of important biographies but, if you simply took a look at his military career, you would rate him much lower. So MILHIST would need to decide the basis of importance, which would need to be somewhere in the realm of importance to military history. Then we'd have to argue relative importance of weapons, tactics, battles, people. And then random editors would ignore all this and rank people as highly important because they are a personal hero or they have a love affair with a certain military formation. I really can't see us introducing importance ratings without a lot of work Monstrelet (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. David Chandler's book "A Guide to the Battlefields of Europe" has a "four star" importance-rating system, which I dismiss, as it is completely subjective and all depends on what the historian considers "important", especially in the mid-range.. obviously battles like Waterloo and Gettysburg are major, but it's dodgy ground rating battles and events, let alone weapons, regiments, people, etc. Such things are going to vary based on many biases, nationalistic views, etc, which just won't work on Wiki in favour of NPOV. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally understand that with perspective to this project due to its fairly broad scope and relatively contentious article list. Many of the articles under this project invoke strong feelings and I certainly understand. Additionally I also agree it is a fair bit of work and I personally tend to look at the importance listings with slightly more than a grain of salt and if someone wanted to insist an article was a top priority I wouldn't bother arguing (unless it was clearly obvious to all it was not of course). Here is an example of how we do it in WPUS but it does differ by the project supported such as the state or city projects. WPUS Importance scale--Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Monstrelet and MarcusBritish make good points. If MILHIST prefers not to use importance ratings, then perhaps looking into fixing the "spillover" would be worth the trouble. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I'm certainly not one to try and make anybody do anything. I'll take a look at fixing that tomorrow. At least for the ones affected by WPUS. Unless someone beats me to it that is. --Kumioko (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Both the ACW and ARW task forces are still rated by importance, so apparently this hasn't been fixed. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone trying to fix this? 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's probably no real way to fix this given the way the assessment system uses categories. The assessment statistics are generated from category contents rather than from the template tags which generate those categories; since the task force categories are fed by both MILHIST and non-MILHIST tags, the statistics for them will reflect both sets of tagging schemes. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 19:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing problems regarding Anzac/ANZAC/Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division

The following inconclusive discussion has been copied from the Battle of Romani discussion page -

Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division has been used to prevent edit war between ANZAC and Anzac. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If interested the Australian War Memorial does use ANZAC [1] Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems logical to me. Anotherclown (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But its not accurate the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps did not operate in the Sinai and Palestine campaigns and this corps was not formed into a mounted division, although some light horse brigades served in both. --Rskp (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It is accurate as its the name for the division, and has nothing to do with the separate corps. Or are you now saying the Australian War Memorial have their facts wrong. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, the literature regarding the Sinai and Palestine campaign refers to the 'Anzac Mounted Division'. See Hill 1978 p. 96, Powles 1922 p. 22, Wavell 1968 p. 90 et al. Bostock served in the 3rd Light Horse Brigade; when his brigade moved to the Imperial Mounted Division, he wrote - "The Anzac Mounted Division still kept its name and was combined with the 1st and 2nd Brigades, New Zealand Mounted, and the 22nd Yeomanry. The new division was called the Imperial Mounted Division and consisted of the 3rd and 4th Light Horse Brigades and the 5th and 6th Yeomanry. We of the 3rd Brigade rather resented the change, as we lost the old name of Anzac. [Bostock 1982 p.62] None of these published sources use ANZAC. --Rskp (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The now archived discussion headed 'ANZAC' on the Military History Project's discussion page concluded with -

The Official history uses ANZAC for the corps and Anzac for the men, the cove, and the biscuits. Its British counterpart uses Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division throughout. I think the use of ANZAC in capitals is a misunderstanding. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite all this Jim Sweeney continues to replace Anzac with ANZAC or the unwieldly Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division in the Battle of Mughar Ridge article, when both the Anzac and Australian Mounted Divisions were involved. Currently this article mentions the Australian Mounted Division, the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division and the ANZAC Mounted Division. [2]

Does anyone else think Jim Sweeney should be stopped from replacing Anzac with both or either of his alternatives?--Rskp (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Rskp, I don't want to inflame the situation further because I really am just trying to help you all solve it, but I will provide you with my opinion. If you don't want to take it on board, that is fine and I will back off. Personally, I think that in order to solve this problem it requires collegial discussion between all parties. So far I've not seen that. I haven't really even been involved in these disputes and I've found that when I've asked a number of questions (here and here) I am simply ignored. Both Jim and Anotherclown have raised valid points and, although maybe they haven't been very accomodating in the way they have communicated them with you, neither have you been willing to listen to them. If you wish to solve the issue you need to discuss it calmly and accept that other people can also hold opposite, but also equally valid, points of view and that Wikipedia works on consensus. Regarding this issue, in my experience the sources out there vary greatly in the way that they choose to present these units. Some use "Anzac" and some use "ANZAC" etc. It requires editors to work together and reach a consensus using common sense and choose one style. My personal preference is for "Anzac" when it is "I Anzac Corps", "Anzac Mounted Division" etc. because that is how Bean's official history seems to deal with it (at least the 1941/42 editions). However, it is a very minor issue and it is probably best not to get too worked up about it. For example, when I wrote I Anzac Corps, I used "Anzac", because my sources used that. However, another user decided to move the article to I ANZAC Corps. As they provided a decent rationale, I accepted it and moved on to more important things. That is my suggestion to all involved here. If you don't wish for me to participate in the conversation again, please let me know on my talk page. Personally I think that all of you are great contributors and I hope that you can resolve the situation amicably. Apologies for the long post. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks AustralianRupert. The first question which you say was ignored was to do with the casualty figures for Magdhaba which I answered. On 31 December you offered to do the edit which I thought, did not need an answer. Regarding the second question, I thought I had answered this question in full elsewhere and didn't want to waste time repeating myself. Jim Sweeney and Anotherclown have both adopted a special style in all their communications with me, such that they leave no space for positive dialogue. I'm sorry to have to disagree with you but the name of a mounted division which took part in fighting in 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918 is not, to me minor and recent edits have resulted in the Battle of Mughar Ridge having the Australian Mounted Division, the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division and the ANZAC Mounted Division all noted on the one article. --Rskp (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gday AR. No requirement to apologise in my book and you shouldn't need anyone's permission to edit wikipedia or to offer your opinion about how to improve an article (except maybe the missus). Indeed all editors should feel free to contribute. In the past I have voiced my concern about issues of article ownership on a number of pages related to the Sinai and Palestine campaign so I hope that this is not becoming an issue again, although I wouldn't at all be surprised if it was. When one editor holds themselves to be an infallible expert and repeatedly reverts or questions the motivation of even minor edits to improve grammer or MOS compliance I think that is distruptive. Other than the odd professional historian hiding in our ranks we are all amateurs here and the sooner that is recognised the better. That doesn't mean we should not insist on the highest standards though of course. Anotherclown (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hullo all. First off, AC, I don't think I'd gainsay anything you just wrote. Secondly, as a fellow Aussie I feel obliged to weigh in on this one but I'm afraid I can't get worked up about it. Clearly there are documented circumstances where either ANZAC or Anzac predominates but, frankly, I'd tend to treat this the same way we treat date format in a US military article, or Engvar for a non-English-speaking subject, i.e. accept the preference of the article creator and/or chief improver, and be consistent throughout the article. I will of course listen to anyone who wants to poke holes in this suggestion -- but not for very long as there are far more important things to do... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me Ian, and it seems a sensible compromise (like you said there are far more important things to write and talk about). Personally I have no strong opinion about the "ANZAC" vs "Anzac" debate either (my involvement is more pheripherial). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

G'day all. Must say I'm a little surprised there is big debate over this, but here's my 10c worth. Bean uses Anzac to refer to the Anzac Mounted Div, Vol 7 Chap 5 pg 57. The only reason that Chapter has ANZAC in the title is because all the chapter titles are fully capitalized. The 1921 legislation protecting the word Anzac also used the initial capital only. Personally, that would be enough me, but maybe the Kiwi's treat it differently in their official history. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm first of all there are no continuing problems as suggested by the section header, it the same problem as high lighted before. Also there was no conclusion to the previous discussion despite what is suggested above and I have not continued to replace ANZAC as from the link you can see the edit was on the 9 December with the edit summery Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division to stop edit war over ANZAC Anzac which seems reasonable as I had started a discussion on the article page and at MILHIST to attempt to resolve the problem. Also Currently this article mentions the Australian Mounted Division, the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division and the ANZAC Mounted Division. The Australian Mounted Division and the ANZAC Mounted Division are two different formations and the only place the full name Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division is used that I can see is in a direct quote. As I initiated the discussions I will of course follow the community decision so I don't think there was any need for Does anyone else think Jim Sweeney should be stopped from replacing Anzac with both or either of his alternatives hope that satisfies Roslyn SKP. Finally this has also been discussed at WP:Australia ANZAC or Anzac? which seems to suggest that military/all-caps usage has consensus at this time.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it does seem a little strange that this is now being brought up again over month later. Anotherclown (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks Ian Rose but that's not the way Jim Sweeney edits Wikipedia in the Sinai and the Levant of WW1. Anotherclown your personal attack on me is entirely unwarranted - I have done no more than defend the integrity of my references NO MORE. But its Jim Sweeney who waged an edit war on ANZAC/Anzac Mounted Division during the GA review of Magdhaba which resulted in its failure. Jim Sweeney's contribution above is ambiguous - what does he propose to do? And what of the mess he created in Battle of Mughar Ridge on 15 December,[3] and all the other articles where he has been so busy with his unhelpful edits; adding red links, cutting functioning links and replacing Australia and New Zealand with British Empire in infoboxes? See the bracket in the first sentence of the Battle of Magdhaba for another example of his work in this theatre. --Rskp (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So is this an attack on me or a discussion about the Anzac/ANZAC/Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division as the section header suggests. In connection to the above I don't propose to do anything, mainly because I don't know what your talking about. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, everyone, stop discussing editors and focus on the content. Rskp, I agree with Jim here, whether you intended it or not, your posts here look like an attack on him and a number of your other posts on other talk pages demonstrate issues with WP:OWN as others have pointed out. As with many of these issues related to the Sinai and Palestine campaign, all of you - Rskp, Jim and Anotherclown - have raised valid points; if only you would all discuss them objectively, they would be resolved easily. Regarding the issue at hand, Ian Rose raises a possible solution. Because many reliable sources will choose either "Anzac" or "ANZAC", for me it becomes a matter of personal style. Jim and AC, if you agree, why don't we just go with the style employed by Rskp ("Anzac") as they are the original main contributor? This is such a minor issue, so why not solve it that way and move on to the more important issues in the articles? With constructive criticism and collaboration the articles in the Sinai and Palestine campaign could all easily become GAs or higher, but not when editors won't work together. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Rskp, I seriously think it would have been best for you to wait for the others to weigh in to my suggestion before changing it back. They may well have been happy to accept this solution, but by unilaterally making the change as you have, it's probably not going to reduce the tension. [4]. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought everyone had had their say. And really they have, except for AustralianRupert. Jim Sweeney, this is not about you but your edits. I'm sorry if I have not been able to make that clear to you. --Rskp (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have had my say: I suggested a possible solution. It required input from both Jim and Anotherclown before being implemented. That is part of building consensus and resolving a dispute amicably. You decided to implement it without giving them a chance to comment. As you do not appear to want my help, I am done here. I'm sorry I wasted everybody's time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry you feel that way AustralianRupert. --Rskp (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Slightly aside from the main discussion; regarding RSKP's comment "Jim Sweeney's contribution... he has been so busy with his unhelpful edits; adding red links...", you might want to check out Wikipedia:Red link. A further thought; if it's anything like the work did on airborne formations recently, I doubt they'll stay red for very long. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Jim has done excellent work recently creating articles for all of the Australian light horse regiments recently too. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So RoslynSKP has changed back to Anzac despite this ongoing discussion and consensus at WP:Australia to use ANZAC for the military. This together with his claim of the mess I made of the article on 15 December [5] just highlights the problem with the series of articles on that campaign a bad case of WP:OWN. I would suggest that RoslynSKP takes this to WP:Australia as its always going to be open to change, quoting their consensus reached. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Jim Sweeney, its you who has gone willy nillie through this theatre of war first changing Anzac to ANZAC and then to Australian and New Zealand without any consensus, without giving any rationale and ignoring the Wikipedia convention of accepting the preference of the article creator and/or chief improver. There is no WP:OWN here or on any article I have an interest in, as I welcome positive contributions. The link I provided above was not to Maghdaba but to the Battle of Mughar Ridge which has suffered from your "Clean up". See here [6] so that now there is the ANZAC and the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Divisions as well as the Australian Mounted Division, which was in the field by then. AustralianRupert thinks this is an unimportant issue [see his edit above of 04:04, 4 January], but the general reader will currently be completely confused by the names of all these mounted divisions; are there two, three or one? This is an urgent issue as the Battle of Mughar Ridge article is in urgent need of editing, but I can't do anything because I don't want to trigger another edit war as you waged in the Magdhaba article during its GA review. --Rskp (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus for ANZAC at WP:Australia, and you have already changed it back. There is no Wikipedia convention of accepting the preference of the article creator and/or chief improver, its just a suggestion above and it does not override consensus. Accusations of me waging an edit war are unfounded, as seen above I attempted to prevent one by using the divisions full name. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ian Rose says the convention exists. Your use of the full name is unhelpful as it is unwieldy and can be confused with the Australian Mounted Division. Using Anzac is consensus here and I believe should be adopted. Changing the place of this argument is not useful or fair as its an issue which involves the whole of the MilHist community, not just Australians. Yesterday when I made the changes, I genuinely thought the issue was resolved. I can assure you I will not make any further changes to the names of this mounted division, nor will I make further comment (unless someone asks for more from me) until someone tells me the outcome.--Rskp (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Rskp, reference your comment: "Anotherclown your personal attack on me is entirely unwarranted - I have done no more than defend the integrity of my references NO MORE..." I didn't even mention your username in my post above so I fail to see how its a personal attack (although the fact that you recognise your behaviour in my comments seems instructive). Reference your next nugget: "Jim Sweeney and Anotherclown have both adopted a special style in all their communications with me..." I haven't edited one of YOUR articles or your talk page in nearly a month. Regardless, my "communications" with you on your talk page and a number of article talk pages are plain for anyone to view and form their own opinions (and I welcome anyone that can be bothered to do so). That your attempt to "report" this "communication" went no where should indicate that such accusations are baseless though. Editors before me have raised the issue of your article ownership (such as here), I've raised it repeatedly, Jim has raised it, and now AR has raised it. Are we all crazy? Lastly, why have you revived this issue again long after it seemed to have run its course? That hardely seems like an act of good faith. Anotherclown (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Anotherclown your post is another example of the special style of communication you employ when addressing me. I carefully did not mention your editing style because your edits of articles were not in question, but your communication style on talk pages while its Jim Sweeney's edits of the name of the Anzac Mounted Division in articles which is the subject of this dispute. I invite everyone to follow your link to the Battle of Jerusalem talk page to see what a spurious argument you are making.--Rskp (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Anotherclown I remind you "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." [7] Its worrying to me that the Military history project seems to sanction the style you employ for your talk page edits regarding myself.--Rskp (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You really need to follow your own advice Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• The reasons are as stated. Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division was, in practice, too cumbersome a name, so "Anzac Mounted Division" came into use. The all caps usage is muddle headed. This is the consensus of military historians and I see no reason not to follow. (Aside: I have never seen a class that knew what an "Army Corps" is.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Battle of" disambiguation pages.

Greetings. In case anyone is interested in doing a bit of fun cleanup, here are the current top 12 most linked-to "Battle of" disambiguation pages:*

1. Battle of Ypres (35 links)
   • Actually, there still seem to be a large number of incoming article links to "Battle of Ypres". If these are intentional, they should be piped through [[Battle of Ypres (disambiguation)Battle of Ypres]] so they don't show up as errors on the "what links here" page. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
     • Note that some editors think linking through a redirect is a mistake and will remove the specifier... 76.65.128.132 (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

   I've had another go at the "Battle of Ypres" list. A number of them refer to the battles as a whole, so the dab page is the target; we have a Battles of Ypres page, which redirects to the dab page, so I've changed the link to that. It makes more sense on the page that way (viz). Xyl 54 (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

2. Battle of Chattanooga (34 links)
3. Battle of the Marne (33 links)
4. Battle of Arras (30 links)
5. Battle of El Alamein (30 links)
6. Battle of Manila (29 links)
7. Battle of Bull Run (28 links)
8. Battle of Corinth (27 links)
9. Battle of the Atlantic (27 links)
10. Battle of the Aisne (26 links)
11. Battle of the Lys (26 links)
12. Battle of the Scarpe (23 links)

Any help correcting the links to these pages so that they point to the correct battle would be most appreciated; completed lines can crossed out. *Battle of the sexes left out for obvious reasons; thank goodness that one doesn't fall under this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done what I can for the Battle of Lys entries. A lot of the links are to talk pages, though, so I've left them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Did correct around 15 for Battle of Ypres and had a look at all the the rest: it is either talk page links or wiki page links or it is impossible to discern what battle is meant (or all the battles are actually meant). So I think Ypres can be crossed out now. noclador (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

One oddity. The Scarpe page has a "links to" for this, but AFAICT, no link back to the dab page... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignore my last... I missed it. :( TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've done the Battle of Bull Run with the already stated exceptions of talk pages etc. NtheP (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Presuming I haven't missed any...Scarpe is done, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Atlantic & El Alamein battles done. NtheP (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of the Aisne done (except the usuals) Xyl 54 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Also Battle of Arras. Xyl 54 (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

All that's left now is Chattanooga, Manila, and Corinth. bd2412 T 21:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who is working on this. We generally do not fix links on user pages or talk pages, but focus instead on links in articles, images, categories, and portals. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gettysburg articles

I recently came across the following articles recently:

• Anderson's assault
• Crawford's charge
• Johnson's assault
• McLaws' Assault

I was wondering if it is necessary to include articles about the actions of individual divisions at Gettysburg. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly a lot of prose, refs and nice maps there.. well 3 anyway.. would be terrible to lose any, but they probably should be merged into the main article, which isn't terribly long, and redirect them to it. Might need to go via WP:PM to make sure no one objects, though, to avoid disputes afterwards if it's done without consensus. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I also found a few other articles here and was wondering if these places were notable enough to warrent an article:

• • • • Big Round Top Observation Tower Foundation Ruin
      • Consecration of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg - wondering if we need both this article and the Gettysburg Address.
      • The Peach Orchard
      • Knoxlyn Ridge (apparently its only use was a staging area for Confederate attacks).
      • Blocher's Run
      • Guinn Run
      • Rose Run
      • Winebrenner Run

Apparently, most of these articles were created by Target for Today (talk). Other than they are all connected to the Gettysburg battlefield, I don't see much reason for keeping them, unless someone else thinks otherwise. Wild Wolf (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The last 5 (stubs) seem a bit scrappy and lacking. I personally wouldn't merge the consecration and Address. One is a notable event which might have been better suited at the end of the Battle of article, one is a highly notable speech which certainly warrants an article of its own. Not sure about the Observation Tower. Seems to be more an inherited notability than having notability of its own. Also probably better suited in the Battle of article, some heading like "Modern day battlefield" with details of its observation points, visitor center, tours, etc, but non-promo. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I also found these articles which look to me like canidates for deletion:

• Zeigler's Grove
• Wheatfield Road
• White Run (Rock Creek)
• Stevens Run (Rock Creek)
• Stevens Knoll
• Spangler Spring Run
• Spangler Woods
• Spangler Spring
• Barlow Knoll

Do anyone else think these should be deleted? Wild Wolf (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

All are stubs. However, I could add a substantial amount of information from my personal family website about Barlow Knoll, where two of my ancestors fought David and Thomas Moll. The source of that page being the 1909 History of the 153d Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I took a brief look at Target for Today's contribs. It seems he's adding a lot of Gettysburg stubs and fairly insignificant categories, which are now being nominated for deletion, by other editors, as people feel there are too many or they don't serve a purpose. Might be useful to reel him into a discussion here and plan a more objective approach: instead of a plethora of stubs, one substantial article, which might actually attain A-class and GA status, would be better. Several of these could easily be merged into the Gettysburg battlefield article to make it a lengthy, centralised article. When you tour a battlefield like that, you usually want to see it all, you don't go to one small area then done. Same for wiki. Redirect these to that one and give a bigger picture. Focusing on small zones is not really achieving anything, imo.. though the information is still valid, the splits are not as notable compared to merging them into one nice detailed article. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 15:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It would also be a good idea if some more expert editors looked at the categories being created starting at Category:Gettysburg Campaign working down to come up with a plan of how best to fit the articles in them into an appropriate categorization scheme. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have put some of these pages up for deletion; please comment on the deletion log page. I will also alert Target for Today. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional articles have been put up for deletion on this page. Any and all feedback will be welcome. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that on some of the first round of deletions I put up, The Bushranger suggested merging some of the pages (like Zeigler's Grove, Rose Run, and Knoxlyn Ridge) into a single article like "List of minor locations of the Gettysburg Battlefield". Sound like a good idea to anyone else? Wild Wolf (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not just toss them into Gettysburg battlefield? I doubt anyone is ever going to search for "minor locations" anywhere in the world, as the term is somewhat ambiguous and subjective, imo, and I'm not sure if it would improve their notability as much as if under the main title. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

With the deletion proposals, there seems to be much support with keeping the streams articles as part of the Rivers and Pennsylvania WikiProjects but there are few comments on the others. Perhaps, as MarcusBritish suggested, the other geographical features should be redirected to the Gettysburg Battlefield article, since many of these, such as the Slaughter Pen and Excelsior Field, were the focus of the actions of only three or four regiments in total, and others, such as Knoxlyn Ridge and Warfield Ridge, only served as staging areas for assaults and saw no military action. The following setup might work:
Redirect and merge into Gettysburg Battlefield:

• Biesecker Woods
• Excelsior Field
• Knoxlyn Ridge
• Lohr's Hill
• McMillan Woods
• Plum Run (White Run)
• Rose Run
• Slaughter Pen
• Spangler Spring
• Spangler Woods
• Stevens Knoll
• Warfield Ridge
• Wheatfield Road
• Zeigler's Grove

Keep but remove from Gettysburg Campaign categories:

• Guinn Run
• Pitzer Run
• Spangler Spring Run
• Stevens Run (Rock Creek)
• White Run (Rock Creek)
• Winebrenner Run

Merge to Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day:

• Anderson's assault
• McLaws' Assault
• Johnson's assault
• Crawford's charge
• Battle of East Cemetery Hill

Any comments? Wild Wolf (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're happy doing that, I'm happy to support it! Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 08:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be increased interest in deleting some of the Places of the Battlefield entries, so I'll wait a few days to see how it turns out before creating the mergal proposals. Wild Wolf (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've put up a couple of categories up for deletion here. Any comments would be appreciated. I will try to get to merging the Second Day articles later today. Wild Wolf (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added additional articles here. Any comments would be appreciated. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to maneuver through this blizzard of proposals and update all of the appropriate comment pages. But let me say in general that I support Wild Wolf's attempts to clean up this area and remove or merge all of the splintered articles about micro subjects relating to Gettysburg. The strategic and tactical description of the Battle of Gettysburg has already been split into an overview article, nine major subarticles (first day, second day, Cemetery Hill, Culp's Hill, Little Round Top, third day cavalry battles, Pickett's Charge, Union OOB, Confederate OOB), and two campaign articles. This is substantially more detail than is written for any other American Civil War battle. Breaking down the description into even more subarticles does not make it any easier for the reader to understand this important battle. Furthermore, the minor streets, streams, and hills in the Gettysburg area have virtually zero notability outside of their involvement in the tactical details of the battle. The appropriate place to describe features such as Winebrenner Run or Wheatfield Road is in the related battle subarticle, not articles of their own. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

German Field Armies of WWI & WWII

I am fairly new to editing, so please bear with me if this question has been asked (and resolved) previously. I note a series of articles on German Armies e.g. 1st Army (Germany) which cover the armies of WW1 and WW2. I believe that these should be separate as the two formations had no direct lineage link in a manner analogous to 1st Division (German Empire) and 1st Infantry Division (Wehrmacht). I do not know how to go about spliting / renaming / whatever these articles. Would redirection be needed? Or disambiguation? Hamish59 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to create two new articles called 1st Army (German Empire) and 1st Army (Wehrmacht) and convert the former 1st Army (Germany) to a disambiguation article pointing to the two new articles. And then the fun begins identifying every article pointing to the disambiguation article and redirecting to the respective correct new article.MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To name it (German Emprie) and (Wehrmacht) would be wrong as one names a state and the other a force. I know the problem as the official name of the forces of the Empire is Deutsches Heer which could be mixed with the Heer of the Bundeswehr but there should be some continuity in name giving. So the names should be (German Empire) and (Third Reich) or (Drittes Reich). Otherwise could be (Deutsches Heer) and (Wehrmacht). --Bomzibar (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Bomzibar, you are completely correct. Unfortunately we've just had a long discussion (check archive 115, I think it is, or the thread collection in Talk:German Army) about naming suffixes for German units, and we've just evolved the mismatched system that you identify. But you are completely correct, so I suppose it's time to reopen the discussion.

Therefore question. Should we go by the name of the state, or the army? The ()s at the moment are (German Empire), (Wehrmacht), (Bundeswehr) and the putative, in-reserve for when it gets necessary (East Germany). East Germany is a special case and I believe it should remain that way. I believe that we should rename (German Empire) to (Deutsches Heer), because the alternative is to rename all the Wehrmacht articles (Third Reich) and the (Bundeswehr) articles (Federal Republic of Germany) which would be much more work and a really clumsy disambiguator for the FRG articles. What do other people think ? Buckshot06 (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, articles about other countries armies are all on one page, and titled number, unit, country (eg 1st Army (United States), 1st Army (Bulgaria)); in what way are the armies of Germany different?

And if we are going to change the format, we should definitely use english, so Deutsches Heer would be plain wrong. In fact, I've no idea why the German Army article is entitled "Heer"; it isn't a term that's in common use in english at all. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Xyl54, have you reviewed Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_106#German formations? Suffice to say, many other countries can trace historical continuity between their 1st Armies, such that they can be in the same article. This is not possible for Germany because of the Nazi period. Regarding the German Army article, it is at German Army; this is not in dispute. But what your post points out is the WP:UE difficulty caused by consistent naming across the units and disambiguators. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I’ve had a look at the archive; the suggestion there seems to be that articles on the English WP about German military units need special treatment because to do otherwise might upset public opinion in Germany. That doesn’t sound like a good reason to do anything here; if the German WP chooses to handle it that way, that's up to them, surely? I don't know that the continuity is that much different; if a British Army unit was disbanded, and the designation re-used for a newly-raised unit we put them on the same page, in separate sections; I don't see why is that so problematic for pages on German units.

Also, what UE difficulty? There are English terms for the German Empire, Nazi Germany, East Germany, West Germany, the German Federal Republic, all in common use; there is no necessity (and good reasons not) to use non-English terms.

And the “Heer” article I was thinking of is this one. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Xyl54, first, I think renaming Heer 35-45 to German Army (1935-1945) would be just fine. The suggestion in Archive 106 was to use different disambiguators for different periods, because historical continuity cannot be traced between units. Look on plwiki for a similar example, which we may end up using here as well - (Second Polish Republic), (Third Polish Republic) etc. Beyond that, the existing term 'Wehrmacht' has been adopted because we're using it already, and I for one personally do not want to go changing diambiguators for fifty plus corps, two hundred divisions, and around twenty armies, plus smaller units. Consensus in the Archive 106 discussion indicates that most people here are happy with using a number of German loanwords, and certainly Wehrmacht is a term familiar to many English-speakers interested in World War II. Names for German states are complicated ; 'Nazi Germany' is not the correct name of the state, and the German Federal Republic is West Germany - the name of the state did not change in 1990. To sum up, we have existing precedent with existing disambiguators, and a consensus in the Archive 106 discussion, and any change would require a large amount of article title changes. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If by loanword you are meaning non-english words that have come into common use in English, and are as likely to be found in English text as the equivalent English ones, then yes, I would agree Wehrmacht probably qualifies. The same cannot be said, though, for Deutsches Heer, or Dritte Reich (or, for that matter, Nationale Volksarmee, Kaiserliche Marine, Luftstreiteskrafte, or many of the other terms that have found there way here).

And, I agree Nazi Germany may not be the correct term for that particular German polity, but it is the common English name; if that isn’t acceptable (and I for one wouldn’t want the term "Nazi Germany" emblazoned over the titles of a couple of hundred articles here) then Wehrmacht seems a reasonable compromise. But it should not be the thin end of a wedge; the further we depart from common English terms to use (in this case) German ones, the more pretensious it all sounds. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: Following on from this, I’ve put a RM at Heer (1935-45), here. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

On the same topic, I have been working on the three Croatian 'legionnaire' divisions of the Wehrmacht in WW2 (369, 373 and 392 Infantry), and the two articles currently live are now titled 'XXXxx (Croatian) Infantry Division'. Before I put my draft of the third one up, I am wondering if they should all be renamed to add either (Wehrmacht) or (Germany) after each one. The other German divisions seem to be mostly using (Germany), but a few use (Wehrmacht), like 1st Mountain Division. Any suggestions on this one? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I've found my answer at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_106#German formations. I'll go with (Wehrmacht). Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The three Croatian Divisions were part of the Wehrmacht, so you can use (Wehmacht). Otherwise you also could use there nicknames, for example 369. Infantry Division "Teufelsdivision" which would be a lot more complicated.

I wonderes about the German Wikipedia because we use (Deutsches Kaiserreich) for German Empire Divisions too. As I asked, it is because Deutsches Heer is the official name of the army of the German Empire but it also is a disambugation because every german army in fact is a Deutsches Heer. --Bomzibar (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 may wish to note 3rd Algerian Infantry Division, a similar article title situation but concerned with a colonial unit of the French Army. Also note that if the unit identification number is historically unique, then a further identifier such as "(Germany)" is unnecessary. W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The consensus, then, seems to be 1st Army (Germany) as a disambiguation page with 1st Army (German Empire) (for pre-1918) and 1st Army (Wehrmacht) (for WW2 era). The question I now have is: how do I go about this?

• Do I rename 1st Army (Germany) to 1st Army (Wehrmacht)? If so, how?
• Or do I create 1st Army (Wehrmacht) and copy most of the content of the existing 1st Army (Germany) into it? But wont this lose edit history, discussion, etc?

Help would be much appreciated, as I expect to repeat the exercise for 2nd Army (Germany), etc. Hamish59 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely this can be automated by means of a script - replace all "n Army (Germany)" with "n Army (Wehrmacht)" etc. I am certain there is a MilHist SQL Guru around who could write such a script in a few minutes! Farawayman (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, have tracked down how to change (use a "move"). I will wait to see if an automated script comes along. If not, I will have a go. Hamish59 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser might be of some assistance with this (I'm not speaking from experience, I've never tried it). However, if you're planning a large number of automated edits you might need to get bot approval first (see WP:BOT and WP:BAG). EyeSerene^talk 14:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have moved 1st Army (Germany) to 1st Army (Wehrmacht), removed the WW1 stuff and added a topnote to a new article 1st Army (German Empire) with the WW1 stuff from the original article. 1st Army (Germany) is now a rediect page. I have ploughed through all the "what links here" for all 3 articles to tidy up (lots!). Some I have not touched - links to talk pages or sandboxes. Problem: we now seem to have no less than 4 redirect pages

six pages (5 talk, 1 sandbox) links to 1st Army (Germany)

one page (talkpage) links to First Army (Germany)

no pages link to German 1st Army

two pages (sandboxes) link to German First Army

All of these will go up once I commit this edit! How does this redundancy get dealt with? Hamish59 (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Two options: first, set all the redirects to point to 1st Army (Germany), or send the excess redirects through Redirects for deletion (WP:RfD). Buckshot06 (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Buckshot06. I think I will go for the former. Duplication does not seem to be a criteria for deleting redirects according to WP:RfD Hamish59 (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC discussion on electing leadership

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, regarding electing leaders. Sorry, the discussion is long and heated and no simple section to send you, but see the whole page.

Milhist coordinator leadership and elections have been mentioned as one model to learn from. Appreciate any insights and participation.

(And this is not "canvassing". Please give whatever insights you have pro/con or expecially in terms of expanded learning. You can feel free to drop TCO-recruit for 20 pushups or mountain climbers, too.  ;-))

TCO (Reviews needed) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, not so much "long" as "You'll go blind and insane if you try to read the whole thing" :) Where we are now is, User:Mike Christie has put up a poll to determine which of the multitudinous issues we're going to tackle first. At the moment, it looks like first up is going to be a discussion about the current FAC leadership, specifically User:Raul654. I don't think anyone has to worry that they're going to "miss out" if they don't track every edit; as each question comes up for voting, everyone will repeat the important points. My best guess for the section to keep your eye on if you don't want to miss a chance to vote (or not-vote) is WT:FAC#Leadership structure and current leadership, and I'll make a post when the vote starts. - Dank (push to talk) 23:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, been following it as best I can but have refrained from weighing in as pretty well anything I might add has already been said half a dozen times already. May stop in at the actual vote but that's probably about it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the voting page just went up, although I don't know when the vote is coming: WP:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Pathfinder (RAF) & No. 8 Group RAF

These two articles have one hell of a lot of overlap because the history of 8 Gp in WW2 is the history of most of the life of the Pathfinders. Should they be merged? NtheP (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

They've been on my mental to-do list for ages.. merge away ! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There's some minor quirks to encompass along the war - the No. 8 group of 1918/9 and the bomber group of the early part of the war, plus 5 Group using their own Pathfinders and the 8 Groups Mosquito LNSF that didn't do any pathfinding. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Graeme, it appears that my redirect of Light Night Striking Force was incorrect some time ago. I'll change it. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Its probably possible to write a separate article on the LNSF itself, but in the short term that section could do with expanding. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason there's an overlap is that at some point in the past someone has copied the stuff at Pathfinder (RAF) over to No. 8 Group RAF. The logical thing to do would be to delete it again. As Graeme says, the two aren't synonymous, although 8 Group carried out the pathfinder function (most of it) for most of the war. The 8 Group article should discuss the unit history (1st and 2nd World Wars, and both WWII incarnations (like all our other RAF Group articles); the Pathfinder article is the place for the development, techniques, major operations and politics involved in pathfinding. But if you feel a merge is more appropriate, I would suggest opening a merge discussion on the article page, and see what support it gets. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure a merge was needed, hence my asking here first. There's certainly some separating out needed along the lines you suggest and some rigourous monitoring afterwards to keep them split and discrete. NtheP (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Following on from this, I’ve posted the suggestion here. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Falklands and request for input on the use of the infobox

Hi all,

After a short break, the discussion I started about the Falklands War article has been consigned to the archives. In short, to answer some of the questions left there, a task force of some description might be a good idea, but I believe it might be a little bit late now given that the anniversary is only a few months away. Personally, what I’d like to see is as many people who can, chip in on the main article on an ad-hoc basis and get it suitably ready for a GA review, so at least an article of some merit can be ready for the “On this day” page. Basically just a quick drive to get some quality article work done in the next couple of months.

On that note, there’s already a bit of a long-standing issue at the article, which I would welcome some input from any editor on. Having achieved a consensus of opinion that it would be good to include Margaret Thatcher in the infobox, given her status as Prime Minister during the conflict, one editor has insisted that this is only acceptable if every member of the entire War Cabinet (established and chaired by Thatcher) is also included. Not only does this seem to go against the established consensus that I (and other editors) see at other war articles and the guidance at the infobox page, but it also seems to make a rather unattractive infobox (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falklands_War&diff=470083750&oldid=470000247).

Could I please get some opinions on this matter? Whilst I accept that all the members of the war cabinet are notable people in their own right, I don’t believe their role was notable enough to have them included in a summary box (nor do several other editors). I’d have thought that the PM alone was enough (being the head of the cabinet and the country).

The full (long winded) discussion on the subject is at Talk:Falklands_War#Margaret_Thatcher. I’ll leave it to other editors to decide what they think of it, but speaking personally, I think it reeks of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and I’m quite frankly sick of the whole thing.

Any reasoned input is appreciated! Cheers, Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Except this isn't a long standing issue. And rather than Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT more of a case of Wikipedia:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. One editor didn't insist one editor suggested that the War Cabinet be included. He didn't actually demand that the whole War Cabinet be mentioned, he pointed out that listing solely Margaret Thatcher implied a presidential style of Government rather than the collective responsibility practised by the War Cabinet. And editor who is still prepared to consider alternatives but here you go poisoning the well. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that and the most recent edits to the talk page speak for themselves. You're missing (or rather ignoring) the point that everyone else has made at the talk page. There is no question that the war cabinet was important and they're quite welcome in the article. However, they're not notable enough to be in the infobox- even in your most recent form. I invited you dozens of times to discuss their inclusion on a wider platform (here), and you repeatedly refused. You've also changed your argument when your previous argument has been refuted several times whilst ignoring and then misrepresenting everyone else's stance. You haven't proposed or considered any other alternatives to listing the war cabinet in the infobox either. Your clever wording above ("He didn't actually demand") does nothing to change the essential fact that you have continually lobbied and reverted to include the entire war cabinet ever since it was agreed to include Thatcher. In fact, I just looked for some diffs to support this and found 9. I can't be bothered to include them all, so here's a smattering: [8] [9], [10]. Ranger Steve ^Talk 18:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve, all you demonstrate with those diffs is that I've been prepared to compromise on my edit proposal. Consistently. As to discussion on a wider platform, I have responded to you here [11] noting that rather than general guidelines it should be considered on an article by article basis. One size doesn't fit all. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Having read none of the discussion at the article talk page but looking at the "War Cabinet included" version (which I agree is unwieldy), I'd suggest a middle road. Is there a British War Cabinet of the Falklands War article around (or alternatley, an article created that list the whos and whens of the cabinet, along with dates of establishment and disbanding, major decisions, and internal politics? That could be linked in the infobox as "Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the War Cabinet" - gets the name in there, without the overly long list of names. -- saberwyn 22:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is an option, and the reason I've pressed repetitively (on the Falklands War talk page) for a wider discussion about the infobox is because doing so has implications on how we represent politics or leaders in the infobox at this, and other articles. Unfortunately the discussion there has just become bogged down in accusations of bad faith, cabals and even bullying now I notice. My thought is that the Falklands War article itself will be doing exactly what you suggest in its content, which seems like the best place to have it all, and that for a summary box that should include the main players, the PM alone is notable enough. War cabinets have been formed for numerous conflicts in which the UK has been involved, but we don't include them in infoboxes at WWI, WWII, Gulf War, or (as far as I can work out) any of the relevant wars during the war on terror. I also wonder if it's a touch WP:undue Ranger Steve ^Talk 23:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Saberwyn, there is such an article and I did that here [12], the relevant article is War Cabinet but it was simply reverted. Is this an unreasonable edit? Its sourced per WP:RS and WP:V but reverted by editors referring vaguely to style guidelines and "precadent and practise". I would ask editors to note that I have been quite happy to accept such a suggestion [13].

Have I lobbied to include the entire War Cabinet, no, I simply suggested it should be mentioned. Show me one diff where I demand every member of the War Cabinet should be mentioned, in fact I positively urge uninvolved editors to examine the diffs provided above by Steve or my comments on the talk page. You have to ask why there is this constant effort to paint an editor with a differing opinion as making unreasonable demands. I make a reasonabe point and not unreasonably object when it is airily dismissed. I don't make accusations of bullying, bullying is definitely going on right now and its frankly ridiculous over such a minor point. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know you feel aggrieved, you've gone to some length to make that point over and over again. For everyone else's benefit, here is your response to Sturmvogell66's comment on the talk page, after his attention was drawn to the article by my request for input here (I'd also point out that I haven't had any contact with Sturmvogel for at least a year and wouldn't necessarily class him as a mate - no offence Sturmvogel!). Characterising such a contribution as canvassing and bullying is pointless, irrelevant and extremely bad faith, but it does seem to be your main editing style.

We are here to discuss the appropriateness of including a war cabinet in an infobox, as it is something that isn't done anywhere else, and because several (5 I think) editors find it inappropriate. I've never accused you of 'demanding' their inclusion, but you certainly are of the opinion they should be are you not? Why else would you continually insert them into the article? Your 'compromise' has only come about in the last 24 hours and I'm afraid that I personally don't agree with it anyway, and nor I suspect do the other editors who oppose you - they are quite clear that they think it should be Thatcher in the infobox alone.

If it is as simple as "I simply suggested it should be mentioned", accept the fact that the consensus is that they shouldn't. As you say, this is a minor point. So, in the face of so much resistance to your stance, why don't you drop the stick? Ranger Steve ^Talk 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I quote "I've never accused you of 'demanding' their inclusion" - except yes you did "one editor has insisted that this is only acceptable if every member of the entire War Cabinet". Its in your very first post. I wouldn't care, its simply another example of how you claim one thing, while doing another but its right there above. You started this thread here, with a blatant call for action against another editor, who you painted as the devil incarnate. Your comments were not a neutral call for opinion, you were lobbying for other editors to weigh in on your side. And funnily enough you got an editor you've previously worked with to do precisely that. I don't see a consensus, there has never been a willingness to discuss a proposal or consider how it might be included. I have been prepared to make compromises or consider alternatives, clearly you're not under any circumstances. What I proposed added 4 words. Whilst I would prefer to discuss content, I constantly find that I'm having to defend myself against your accusations. Frankly the way you've gone about this is rather ridiculous, and in return why don't you drop the stick. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cologne in WWII

Hello. There's a dispute about the fall of Cologne in 1945 involving contradictory sources. Help would be appreciated at Talk:Cologne. Thank you, Pichpich (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Shawinigan Military College

see Talk:Shawinigan Military College, where the existence and what this is, is under discussion. It currently redirects to the CEGEP, which is wrong, but what to do with it is being discussed. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

Just a heads up it appears the Encyclopedia Britannica is not classed as a reliable source see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable source?. I have only seen it used a few times in MILHIST articles, but anyone thinking of using it should be aware. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

G'day, Jim. Thanks for this link. I really need to spend more time reading over the RS noticeboard as it is something that I've neglected in my wiki-education. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Only by some. It's a perfectly acceptable source and at least as reliable as quoting random journalist in the daily paper which Wiki is littered with! --Bermicourt (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC spotscheck

Obviously I'd like comments in general, but I thought the spotchecking tasks for Nyon Conference (FAC here) might in particular suit a military historian. Enough of them come from PDFs that I can, and will, email upon request. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Combatants in infoboxes

A number of infoboxes in the Sinai and Palestine theatre of WW1 have seen the countries involved in the combat cut, leaving only 'British Empire'. Two reasons have been given a)that the countries are all in the British Empire, and b) that it brings combatants1 and combatants2 into line as only the Ottoman Empire is mentioned. See [14] for an example.

The trouble is, as I see it, countries like Australia, India and New Zealand in particular, which all played significant roles in the campaigns, don't get a mention at the top of the article. This has the potential to put off readers who may be looking for operations involving one of these countries. Do you think this is ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoslynSKP (talk • contribs) **I'm sorry I forgot to sign this.--Rskp (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I really think that you guys need to set up a RfC or some other 'big picture' solution. Repeatedly raising issues with one another on an ad-hoc basis isn't the best way to sort this out, particularly as you all seem to be editing in very good faith and the issues which are causing so much discussion are really at the margins of the articles. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Within a specific military campaign infobox there should be enough room to fit the individual contributors as an indented list below "British Empire", particularly when it was under a central authority. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more? Several issues stand out to me. Firstly, whilst I understand why this approach has been taken, I really think it is wrongheaded to treat the Ottoman Empire the same as the British Empire during the First World War. Firstly, Australia and New Zealand were separate countries, and whilst hey weren't entirely independent of Britain with regards to foreign policy, their key roles in the campaign in the Middle East should be properly recognised in the infobox of these articles. Secondly, given their contribtion, it is appropriate to identify them as being involved. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty space for all of them see Battle of Megiddo (1918), the problem is you can not just cherry pick which one you want to include. If ones in they all have to go in (see example). The Ottoman and German side does have a problem, as sources for what states provided forces for the campaign are not available. So its a bit one sided just filling in the British side. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Nick-D There is room for all but there needs to be some sort of guideline about what and who is appropriate e.g. is it belligerent countries or nationalities of participants. I know that on Battle of Britain there has been dispute about showing Poland as one of the particpating nations because although Polish aircrew played a significant role in the battle, the state of Poland wasn't a belligerent (or was it?). NtheP (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between the Ottomans, being a diverse empire of provinces etc, but not comprising internationally recognized countries, and the British, comprising some states such as Canada, Australia, NZ etc as well as the Indian Empire, which was under British rule. It seems to me if a state was involved it should be in the info box. What states existed in the German empire? Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The German Empire included states like Prussia, Baveria etc there is a full list here List of historic states of Germany. The Ottoman Empire stretched from Bosnia and Bulgaria in the north to Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Iraq in the south and east. There is a map available File:Map-of-Ottoman-Empire-in-1900-German.svg. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Germany was unified in 1871, none of the states you refer to were separate state entities any more than New South Wales in Australia at the time. The Ottoman Empire did not include any independent States either. This argument is a canard. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

From the German Empire article - The German Empire consisted of 27 constituent territories (most of them ruled by royal families). Some formed their own military formations see 6th Bavarian Reserve Division (German Empire) a unit of the Royal Bavarian Army. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Bavaria retained control of its own aircraft production for most of the war and fielded its own distinct squadrons, as did (if I recall correctly) Saxony. Both states allowed central government control of their forces, but they were technically independent. I don't think New South Wales had the same status, although Australia as a whole might have when considered in the context of the British Empire.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The info box template says the countries involved, although sometimes larger entities such as alliances. Australia was a separate country. Not including Australia, or other countries involved does not aid understanding for the reader. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how much of this is due to the limitations imposed by the infobox format? It can be very difficult to encapsulate a complex idea in a few lines and bullet points. A couple of solutions that have worked for me in the past have been to footnote the infobox summary with a fuller explanation, or to link to the appropriate section of the article if one exists. EyeSerene^talk 14:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is probably simpler than that. It seems to me that there is some other motivation for this. Perhaps Jim could explain his rationale further? Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My only rationale is that if not using British Empire than all involved have to be included, not cherry picking. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd imagine only significant contributors might need to be recorded, though that opens a debate about what was a 'significant contribution'. A division? A regiment? One naval ship? It's certainly more straightforward to keep the infobox to a bare minimum, but I do understand why some might find "British Empire" to be uninformative (it was a big empire after all!) EyeSerene^talk 17:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:East Germany#Satellite state of the USSR or not

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:East Germany#Satellite state of the USSR or not. Should this article describe East Germany (the former German Democratic Republic) as a satellite state of the former USSR?"" Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Military history of Canada

I have taken the time to update add refs etc.. to Military history of Canada. I an interested in seeing how far away from GA level the article would be under this projects idea of what a GA article is. Could I get someone with knowledge of the topic to read over the huge page tell what they think. After a quick read over from the experts here I think a formal review is in order then GA assessment would be next. What do you think am I close or still lots to be done?Moxy (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The refs are looking much improved - nice work. A quick read through suggested to me that most of the obvious issues seemed to involve copy-editing, which could be dealt with at GA assessment. One gap might be the relationship of the Canadian military to groups such as the NWMP - a very Canadian solution to this kind of frontier soldiering, I've always thought. My advice would be to give it a once over for any paragraphs with hanging sentences which lack references (I spotted at least one); check the references for any stray ones (e.g. fn 167), but then consider going for either a Peer Review or straight to GAR and work with the reviewer on the various bits and pieces that it will throw up. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the info - and thanks to User:Jim Sweeney for his "quick pass some obvious cn tags added ". I have taken care of all the reference problems raised. I will work on a sentence or 2 about the relationship between the NWMP and forces. Yes interesting relationship - James F. Macleod would be the cause military and police man at the same time :-) ..but i will read up on it more then add info. Moxy (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As some quick comments, the article seems unduly weighted towards recent Canadian military history. Canada's minimal involvement in the 2003 Iraq War gets as much coverage as its active role in the 1991 war, and there's more on the several-month long operations against Libya by a single fighter squadron than there is on the activities of the Canadian brigade group over several years in Korea, for instance. The material on Afghanistan is now out of date given that the main Canadian force has been withdrawn. I'm not sure why Multiculturalism is being described as a geo-political/military strategy (I think that some variant of 'multilateral' was meant). Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree the Iraq War and Afghanistan section can be trimmed and updated. As for Multiculturalism think it was a typo..as multilateral is what the ref say. Will work on all points raised latter today.Moxy (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I have done what I can do. Pls all jump-in copy edit at will. I will let the article sit for a bit then go for a review.Moxy (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Military history of Canada/archive2.. Moxy (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper now open

The A-Class review for John Sherman Cooper is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox template needed

I have started revamping the WW2 Tehran Conference page and intend to do the same for the other main conferences of WW2 (should include Cairo, Potsdam, Yalta, Casablanca etc). I have searched for a suitable infobox template to use for this type of conference and decided to use Template:Infobox conference as a work-around in lieu of anything better. This template is not particularly suited to the requirement - any ideas or recommendations? Thanks. Farawayman (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Try Template:Infobox historical event. NtheP (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Still not perfect, but a major improvement on the previous one! Thanks. Farawayman (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Help finding out about a campaign

I worked on getting James Inglis Hamilton to GA-class about a month ago. I decided to pick back up the article and add some more information. One thing I am confused about is this sentence: "Hamilton was the colonel of the 15th Regiment of Foot [...] during which he took part in the 1790s West Indies Campaign." I have looked about books and such, but I cannot find anything on this West Indies Campaign. Is there anyone on WP:MILHIST who can help me out? Thanks in advance!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it was more of a exploratory campaign to colonise the West Indies, rather than a military campaign. Looking at history of the British West Indies I see nothing to suggest otherwise. Being a British Empire colony, it would have been garrisoned by British troops, however. You may need to carry out a little more research to confirm this though. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thank you for your input, Marcus.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a fair amount of fighting with the forces of Revolutionary France in the 1790s. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael, try "René Chartrand; Paul Chappell (15 May 1996). British Forces in the West Indies 1793-1815. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-85532-600-2.". It's an Osprey "Men at Arms" book, the 1996 edition is number 294 in the series. There is some mention of the activities that went on against the French, in the Chronology, which might satisfy your needs as a source. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 15:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes; it was a campaign as part of the French Revolutionary Wars. Per Battle Honours of the British and Commonwealth Armies, p. 258, the 15th Foot was awarded the battle honour Martinique 1794 (5 Feb-25 Mar), and also saw service at Guadeloupe (12 Apr) the same year, which wasn't given as an honour to any of the participating regiments. They don't seem to have served in any other major engagements in the West Indies during the campaign. There's a brief mention of this at Campaigns of 1794 in the French Revolutionary Wars. Shimgray | talk | 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite no articles on any "West Indies Campaign", I just found this: Template:Campaignbox Napoleonic Wars: West Indies, strangely enough, although it only covers 1804–10 battles rather than 1790s. After a bit of searching Haitian Revolution is all I can really find of any relevance to the 1790s (see GB in infobox), although it's mostly about slave revolts. Dunno if they're any help, but best I could find here on Wiki. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

To everyone: I really appreciate all this help. With the sources given, I've found some information about it. Thanks again!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have digitizes the book above and this one--> (hope you can see them) Roger Norman Buckley (1998). The British Army in the West Indies: society and the military in the revolutionary age. University Press of Florida. ISBN 978-0-8130-1604-7.......... Moxy (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an extremely good book on the background to the colossal amounts of money Britain poured into her Caribbean campaigns in the 1790s: Soldiers, Sugar and Seapower by Michael Duffy. I haven't looked at it in six years, but as the price suggests it is much in demand. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Medals as decoration

For once, not the usual debate on medal ribbons!

I've just been pointed to John Basilone, which has a 15px floating Medal of Honor in the upper right corner above the infobox. Have we clear policy on this sort of thing? The top icon seems very likely to be against MOS, and it reminds me I've always been a little concerned about displaying the MoH in the infobox alongside the photograph anyway - I think we may have discussed this before, but I don't remember what if anything the consensus was.

Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 18:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall discussing this particular variant on the medal ribbon issue before, but I've gone ahead and removed the icon. Apart from anything else it clashes with the GA/FA symbol area, both of which have gone through community approval processes to be able to use that location (at least I know the GA icon has & I'm assuming the FA icon did at some point!). IMO it ought to be removed from the infobox too, and we have a 'salad bar' further down the article along with another picture of the MoH. Three pictures and a ribbon is, I think, excessive. EyeSerene^talk 20:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(EyeSerene removed the icon but it can be seen in this version of the article.) IMO it's not a useful thing to have because at that size it's not clear what it is, and it's not something instantly recognisable so readers might not know what the medal means in any case. Add to that the redundancy EyeSerene pointed out and I'm not seeing a reason to have it at all. Nev1 (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say the only reason it would be helpful in the infobox would be at its current usage (alongside the photo) or if a photo is absent entirely. —Ed!^(talk) 02:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

ACW stubs

I've been going through some of the ACW task force's stubs and found that some of the articles with stub tags are long enough to be start class. Also, several articles which were classes as stubs on their talk pages were too long to be stubs when I checked the articles. Other pages which actually were stubs didn't have stub tags on the article page. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and edit accordingly. I find that stubs are often not reasessed when they are expanded. But also be cautious - unstructured, unreferenced material does not automatically become a start because it is longer. As the definition of a stub says "It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible."Monstrelet (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing these - it's a long-term maintenance task that takes quite a while to bring up to date. (By my estimates, at least 10% of stub-tagged or stub-rated articles are start-class.) As Monstrelet says, many people don't change the rating themselves after improvement - some don't realise they can, some don't realise there are talkpage ratings, some don't think they're "allowed" to... often, if it's a series of successive small improvements, any individual editor may not think they've "destubbed" it themselves, but the cumulative effect is there. As there's no mechanism for systematically regrading articles, it basically relies on them being caught manually. Shimgray | talk | 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going through these articles but since there are over 2,200 articles in the ACW task force assessed as stubs, it would be nice if I had some help going through all of them. Also, I noticed several articles which are assessed start class which might be better assessed as C or B class (and there are probably some C class which are actually B class). 76.7.231.130 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are 600 or so 701 articles that have already been assessed, and pretty much accurately: User:MarcusBritish/ACWR If you do review and change the class of any of these, please can you update the table by adding a tick to the new class, but please don't remove the "initial" ticks. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 15:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Just ran a count and 145 of those 701 Regiment articles from Dyer's Compendium are Stubs. Well... I suppose that save you checking 7% of those 2,200 again, lol.. every bit helps. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Contest

How come nobody has totaled up the article count for December's contest? January is nearly half done and nobody has even checked the contestants' entries! 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

On that note, whatever happened to military historian of the year? —Ed!^(talk) 15:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation by branch of service

Hi interested editors may want to comment at Talk:George Clinton (Royal Navy officer). it been requested the disambiguation is changed to (naval officer). This would have a huge impact of this project as several articles use (Royal Navy officer), (Royal Air Force officer), (British Army officer) and (Royal Marine officer), when a disambiguation title is required. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hermann Fegelein

I am seeking consensus on whether the portayal of Hermann Fegelein in film, tv shows, etc. should be part of the article. Please visit the talk page. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Fegelein! Fegelein! Fegelein!" (sorry, couldn't resist) Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 17:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

In general, I don't have a strong opinion on its inclusion or not; with that said, I disagree it would be "pop culture trivia", such as, Youtube clips/internet parodies - they are in bad taste; these would be dramatic/historical film portrayals. If included, main works should be stated and not every small possible mention that may have occurred on TV or in film. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review for Military history of Canada now open

A peer review for Military history of Canada is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2011 now open!

Military historian of the year 2011

The time has come to reflect on the past twelve months to see which members of the project should be awarded this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award. Which editor in our project, in your estimation, contributed the most to the field of military history on Wikipedia over the course of 2011? Any Milhist editor may nominate up to ten editors – this is to prevent any of our resident geniuses from nominating the entire membership list! – but can vote for as many editors as they like. Self-nominations are frowned upon. The top three get the gold wiki, the silver wiki, and the bronze wiki respectively. All other nominees will receive the WikiProject barnstar.

Please nominate in the following format, with brief comments (twenty words max). Nominations are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 January. There will then be a one week long voting period. Please do not vote yet!

• [user name] [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Thanks, and good luck!Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominations

• Parsecboy (talk · contribs), for his phenomenal output of high quality articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Adamdaley. For his work behind the scenes at WP:MILHIST, completing B-Class check-lists, assessments etc. Not the most glamorous of tasks, and he may not have had an FA on the main page, but he has not gone unnoticed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Second; nominate Adamdaley. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 12:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hawkeye7, for his quality articles on high-profile subjects, including J. Robert Oppenheimer, Manhatten Project, Relief of Douglas MacArthur and Thomas Blamey. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Nick-D, for the broad range of his quality articles, including air, land and sea engagements, biographies, and unit histories. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ed!, for his gargantuan efforts on Korean War articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Wild Wolf, for improving dozens of American Civil War articles to B-class. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ian Rose for tending articles on blue orchids, including featured articles on Ian Dougald McLachlan, John McCauley, Valston Hancock, Alister Murdoch, Frank Bladin, Peter Jeffrey and Ozzie Watt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Second. Ian is our resident Renaissance editor, performing such a multitude of tasks so well for the project–FA articles, assessments, Bugle editor, and on and on...Georgejdorner (talk) 15:22 15 January 2012, (UTC)
• Sturmvogel 66, for his constant stream (should I say river, or ocean?!) of quality articles on British, Japanese, US, Russian and Australian warships. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll decline your kind nomination, Ian, as I'd prefer to rest on my laurels.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, we'll strike but leave it here so no-one renominates you by mistake... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• MisterBee1966, for his dedicated work on German officers and recipients of the Iron Cross and its variants. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• HJ Mitchell, for his quality articles on modern British military history, particularly Iranian Embassy Siege and senior army officers (go the biographers!). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Anotherclown, for excellent work on Australian battles of the Korean War, Australian military history more generally and lots of wikignoming and other contributions to this project Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert, for excellent contributions to articles on Australian Army units, many other Australian military history topics and substancial contributions to the project through reviews and 'behind the scenes' work Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Jim Sweeney, for remarkable work on articles about British airborne and commando units of World War II and general contributions to the project Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• The Bushranger, for huge 'behind the scenes' contributions to the project as well as fine work on many articles Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Nikkimaria for a major contribution to reviewing articles within this project's scope (especially FACs), as well as other contributions to the project. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Cliftonian for authoring high quality articles for Rhodesian military history. Especially the Geneva Conference (1976) --MOLEY (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• MarcusBritish For coming back from a shaky introduction to the project and rapidly progressing to become a valuable and consistently helpful editor, both within Milhist and Wikipedia as a whole. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• User:Bahamut0013 I'd like to nominate Bahamut0013. Not because of some need to recognize a passed Wikipedian, but honestly because my participation in this project was strongly enhanced by this member. He was always very helpful, knowledgable, and dedicated to WP:MILHIST. His contributions have greatly improved Wikipedia and had his unfortunate passing not happened, he could easily have been a contender against these other well suited candidates.--v/r - TP 00:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

B class assessment wording

There has been some discussion of the wording of the introductory paragraph at B class assessment "If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department. B-Class requests are assessed using the five B-class criteria(FAQ). Please consider entering articles you have worked on in the military history article writing contest." It is a working assumption that the first sentence is not the only reason why an editor can bring forward an article for assessment i.e. any editor coming across an article he/she finds that is thought to be of possible B class quality can ask the opinion of other editors through this mechanism. Can we confirm consensus on that and rephrase the paragraph to reflect this interpretation? Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

B class in an individual assessment, if I come across an article that IMHO meets the criteria I just change the classification. The important words here are If you have made significant changes to an article if we allow every start/stub class article to be added it would just bog the assessment system down. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've always operated on the assumption that an article should be improved by the nominating editor. We don't allow drive-by nominations for anything else, so I don't see why this should be any different. If an editor is concerned with an out-of-date rating, it's not a difficult task to update it yourself, as Jim points out. Parsecboy (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is knowing how to assess an article to begin with. B-class isn't as arcane as the higher classes but still has rules. Until you are clear how that works, having a place to check your thinking is valuable. B-class assessment is available to any editor - I think we need some safety net while responsible editors learn the ropes. I think allowing an editor to test their opinion in a supportive framework (feedback is usually constructive and contains tips on what needs to be done) is of valueMonstrelet (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Jim Sweeney. The opening sentence is worded with the intent of preventing (or at least discouraging) a conflict of interest for a primary contributing editor. If a new editor is uncertain of the B-class criteria, it is not difficult to look at the example articles provided and compare the work. If the article is improperly or inadequately assessed, there are no sanctions against the inexperienced editor, and (s)he learns by experience. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with User:Jim Sweeney. There's already a separate list of unassessed articles, and I don't like them being dumped in the Requests for Assessment. If an editor did not work on the article, then that editor can assess it themself. Reassessment is to avoid the conflict of interest in re-grading articles yourself. Nor do I see much value in re-assessing articles as less than B class. The main reason I submit articles for re-assessment is to lift articles above stub class so they can be submitted to DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC

Also with User:Jim Sweeney. If an editor needs help learning on how to B-Class assess articles they are more than welcome to ask me or other editors for help. --MOLEY (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that a few newer editors request reviews of articles they haven't worked on for B class status while also reviewing other articles for this status themselves. While I'm not sure what the motivation for this is, it seems reasonable to think that this is being done to benchmark their own assessments. As such, while I basically agree with Jim I'm also in favour of allowing some leeway on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

To tackle a few of these points. Anyone can assign a B class rating and I've seen plenty of self assessments that are not consistent with the way it is done on the request for assessment page. To me , this is a problem. My interest is in getting a consistent approach to B class assessment. Secondly, relatively few people are involved in assessment at all, other than self assessment. We don't have the person power to deploy experienced editors on clearing up mis-assessed articles. We need a way to grow people to do this. I and others have used the request for assessment page as a learning tool in the past. If we remove that, what alternative we use? It is positive that MOLEY is offering help but how would a new editor, keen to do his/ her bit, know to make the contact. I'm happy to go with a consensus but I remain worried about how we create an consistent skilled assessment team. And on the point of unassessed articles, I don't see the point of dumping them into Requests for Assessment either but most R for A are actually reassessments so this doesn't apply. Finally, for those not interested in the assessment of articles below B, that's OK. But they are the majority of our stock and somebody in the project has to work in this area. Adam's behind the scenes cutting back of assessment backlogs and completing B class checklists, others attempts to remove stub tags from non-stubs ans reassess articles to start or C where they've been improved is all vital work in maintaining article stock and a creditable project. More power to their elbow Monstrelet (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

William S. Clark

Hello, I wanted to drop a note here to let fellow Military History Project members know about an open FA nomination for William S. Clark. His article has recently been added to WikiProject Military History. Clark was a colonel during the American Civil War and an educator who helped establish the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Hokkaido University. I hope that some folks from this project might be inclined to comment. The nomination can be found here. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That's it I quit

I am washing my hands of this sorry project. Apprently simple concepts are beyond certain people's comprehention, like asking for ASSESSMENTS on the REQUESTS FOR ASSESSMENTS page! Nobody seems to be interested in doing anything about the assessments on these articles unless they have vested interest in getting their precious articles to the next level. I've also brought up several topics about problems I've seen but the problems still haven't been fixed. I'm done trying to fix anything here. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the problems you're referring to is being discussed above... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a relatively small number of editors trying to pitch in on what is essentially a vast, if not infinite, scale project. Don't be a WP:DIVA. We can't all drop what we're doing and come running everytime someone finds a minor fault. We discuss it first, look for solutions, see if anyone's willing to sort it out, then make it so. It's a process, not only because the number of active members is fairly small at present, but because we all have real life issues as well, and this project operates one of the most multi-national topics and memberships on Wiki. The only way things can gain priority and be efficiently tackled is governed by one thing: collaboration. Getting in a hissy over things like "importance scales" and "too many stubs" doesn't help matters and won't make people feel comfortable working with, and you'll have to excuse my frankness, an anonymous IP contributor. It's quite hard for established members to form a "working" relationship with someone they can't even put a name to, let alone accept demands to "jump to it" and run around seeing to all their concerns. I think that about sums up the truth as civilly as possible, and I'm sure a few members will silently agree. Either join the team, or work with it less insistently. Don't expect it to work for you, though. Anon IP or registered, we're all volunteers, and we're all here to enjoy ourselves, no matter how much or how little gets done. We're all working towards the same goals. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 06:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Marcus, I'm happy to agree with you out loud -- I think you put all that very well. I'm sorry to see someone, even an anonymous someone, get frustrated with the project, particularly when they clearly give a damn, but we have these conventions for a reason and most people seem to consider them reasonable. I hope you'll consider what we've said and return some time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not being that dramatic. I've tried multiple times to get assessments changed ON THE ASSESSMENT PAGE and been repeatedly blocked for doing so and been threatened with having my IP address blocked for doing so. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand a) what you have been trying to achieve, and b) what you may have been threatened a block for. Some diffs might help, or examples of what you mean, and who is opposing it, and their reasons. Blocks can only be made within policy, so you must either believe whatever it is you want changing is legit, or they believe it is against policy. In either case, we need to determine who is right before proceeding further. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

IMO I think the IP editor is referring to the comment made here where coordinator Parsecboy brings the issue of WP:Competence for the IP editor repeatedly placing unimproved articles into the request for assessment page. It can be assumed that User:Wildwolf is familiar with the editor because of an outburst here and also on my talkpage here that is similar to this event under his user name. I have full faith Wildwolf isn't using a WP:Sockpuppet but I do believe this editor needs to be reminded of WP:Civil and that his contributions are valued greatly but as we are all volunteers with different opinions about how MILHIST should run he shouldn't become instantly offended when other editors disagree with him or do not do what he wishes as noted here. If the editor needs help with determining if an article is B-Class or not or if they would just like a second opinion I am more than willing to help.--MOLEY (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wild Wolf is active above in dealing with lots of Gettysburg articles, so who is this IP of, given that they've indicated that they have an account which has been repeatedly blocked, as the IP has no blocklog. I don't see the need to be Anon for some edits, and not for others unless editing in a controversial area. Even then, it might be frowned upon. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Basically, create an account that won't be banned or blocked. Secondly, ask yourself is this article meet all the "Start" requirements. Thirdly, it's possible that someone is willing to re-assess it for you if it is asked nicely. Adamdaley (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This entire scene appears to revolve around the usage of the Assessment Requests page. I think the most recent round of edits that prompted the above outburst started when IP 69.77.53.146 added 10 articles to the Assessment Requests page. Jim Sweeney reverted, directing the poster to the #B class assessment wording discussion above. IP 76.7.231.130 restores here, Jim reverts without explanation, IP 76 reverts back, then starts assessing them. Parsecboy then removes the IP's list with the edit summary "Please stop posting a swath of articles from the unassessed backlog. That is not what this page is for. Read the instructions.", then follows up with a null edit and the summary "if you can't follow simple directions, I'm going to start blocking your IPs". A response comes from Wild Wolf of "Fine, since a REQUEST FOR ASSESSMENT page is apparently not for ASSESSING articles, then I'll just do it myself without getting a second opinion from anyone and nobody will have the right to complain about it", although this may have just been the IP jumping on a public computer Wild Wolf forgot to log out of.

Other recent related incdents may include when IP 64.6.124.31 added 7 articles here, to be reverted by Molestach, who left a note on the IP's talk page, and this back-and-forth where Parsecboy removed a list added by 76.7.231.130 with the summary "this list is for articles you have improved and need an updated assessment", IP 69.77.53.146 restored, then Parsecboy revered again with "Please read what I wrote, then read the instructions for this page. Then stop posting these here." -- saberwyn 02:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Man, what a mess... this is why Wiki should require mandatory Registration, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you are saying that Wild Wolf is not socking, but does this very evidence show that they are? (or at the very least repeatedly not logging in to their acc and then appearing to be someone else unintentionally?) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

By Wild Wolf's wording, sounds like he's using a shared computer. I expect the IP would match him in any SPI, but that doesn't mean it is him.. and given that the IP wanted to walk away and Wild Wolf has continued editing, it is too hard to guess. If it is a shared machine, only Wild Wolf can confirm who it is shared with. If it is a shared IP on a network, maybe not. IDK. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

German formations

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military_history/Archive 106#German formations,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Military history/Archive 107#Single country-military ?, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Military history/Archive 107#A question regarding categorisation

I came here because of an edit to the Battle of Berlin which altered a link from German Second Army to 2nd Army (Wehrmacht) that was done because of a move with the comment: 14:16, 13 January 2012‎ Hamish59 (moved 2nd Army (Germany) to 2nd Army (Wehrmacht): German 2nd Army in WW2 was distinct to that of WW1.)

I understand why Germans for political reasons wish to keep a cut-off point between former German formation and those of the Bundeswehr, and because many English language sources also go along with that split, I can understand why it may be desirable to have two articles for post 1945 and pre-1945. Years ago I knew a young junior German officer who was court-martialled for writing about such an historical linkage between his regiment and earlier incarnations of one from the same geographic location.

What I have never understood is why editors of Wikipedia who would never agree to placing an an article Democratic United States for the country involved in the World War II conflict think it OK to put Nazi Germany instead of "Germany" for their enemy. This type of POV is one pushed by the current German state to distance themselves from the actions of the German state from 1933 to 1945 while still claiming legally that there was no debellation at the end of World War II (it seems like tying to have their cake and eat it).

So while I understand why it is convenient to 2nd army (Bundeswehr) for such a formation if it exists as the Germans do not claim that any of the current Bundeswehr unit has any link to the past. That is not true for units that existed up until the end of World War II, where like other military forces there is encouragement for a unit to have a military tradition based on similar numbered units in the past. Therefore I do not think that the split of 2nd Army (Germany) into 2nd Army (German Empire) and 2nd Army (Wehrmacht) is desirable any more than it would be for Second Army (United Kingdom) to be broken into Second Army (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) and Second Army (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (which was a change of nation state that took place interbellum as well).

If one wants to argue that there really was a big change in the state that governed Germany, then that is not a cast iron reason to separate out the articles, for example the Indian Army does not do this for its units, instead it treats the history of units that existed pre-1947 as part of the history of the current units (Indian Army historyBall of Fire Division both those are government documents ( Remembering 'Ball of Fire' it is the 5th Division's insignia like the Big Red One )).

So anyway I think that the split of these German Army articles into two is a mistake and is not justified in either military history, or political necessity. There may come a day when the articles are big enough to warrant an overview articles and more detailed sub articles but such a content fork should not be done for other reasons. -- PBS (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the other militaries you mention, units of the modern-day German Army do not claim lineage from pre-1945 units of the same name. As such, it's appropriate to use different names for the units, as they are in fact different. I think that I agree with your point about the pre-1945 units though. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Key question is whether the Wehrmacht units in the 30s consiously traced their history from German Imperial units. Did they? Can anyone help here? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion on "German Field Armies of WWI & WWII" above. I think the point made was that while smaller units may have traced their lineage back to Weimar and Imperial times, Armies did not.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@PBS: I only read until you wrote the thing with the german officer and the court-martial. There is no court-martial in the Federal Republic of Germany, only Truppendienstgerichte, which are federal courts. And second I dont see any reason for a conviction of the officer for research the linkage between pre-1945 and post-1945 units because such research is explicitly wished in Germany. Please explain this or present some sources for your statements. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea which court he was up in front of, it was of little interest to me at the time and I don't remember the details. It is of little relevance to this conversation, other than my own personal experience of the German authorities are twitchy over something which other countries encourage. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is of extreme relevance for this conversation because this challenges the free democratic basic order in Germany. The only non-free law in Germany is Volksverhetzung and that would only have been used if this officer would have claimed that a german unit which has murdered civilians (especially Jews) in the war has not murdered them and that it was a lie, this means if he would have claimed the opposite of what he said. You used this as an example that we cant trust the german sheme of name giving so it is important when your example is possibly wrong. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Outsiders

I am not a member of this project, and have never written any articles on military history (though I have helped out with a few through reviews and such). Am I allowed to vote in the military historian of the year award when it opens? If not, I completely understand, and I'll leave you to get on with it. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have not been as active as I would have liked, mostly assisting with copy-editing—more of my energies have been going off-Wiki collecting materials. Nevertheless, I expect I'll vote and, given your interest, I would urge you to join the project and vote as well, assuming you've got editors in mind in light of particular contributions. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, people who haven't signed up to the project are very welcome to vote, and can also make nominations. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Change of unit name

The name of a battalion has been changed from how it appears in the literature cited, so I have added a note to that effect here [15]

This note has been undone here [16] with the explanation 'revert vandalism its cited so how does it not reflect sources used'.

Is this acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia? --Rskp (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It needs a citation, but it was not vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding "reference" was bad form IMO. That really belongs on the talk page, or, perhaps, a <!--hidden comment-->. Calling it vandalism? Bad, too... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:29 & 07:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Question on List-class

Quick question, as I was under the impression that WP:MILHIST didn't have the List-class assessment, as stated in the Assessment FAQ: Has WP:MILHIST changed policy and allowed articles to be assessed List-class? I only asked because an editor recently changed the assessment at Talk:List of castles in Japan. Much obliged. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That edit was from me. MILHIST recently added List Class as a possible assessment. I reassessed the article as a list because it was in the . The change over happened not too long ago. Much Ado, --MOLEY (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian soldier winning lawsuit against Government

An article regarding Knut Braa has been nominated for deletion.

Does the following indicate notability?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Force_in_Lebanon#Compensation_for_tortious_injury

"Knut Arnljot Braa (born 1962) is a Norwegian author and veteran of United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon who won a lawsuit against Ministry of Defence (Norway) in 2006.

(Trial) The Ministry of Defence admitted that Braa acquired mental disorders after service as a UN-soldier. There had been no debriefs while serving UNIFIL, and there was no follow-up after his service had ended.

A verdict of Trondheim District Court of October 18, 2006 resulted in Norway's government being ordered to pay compensation for tortious injury — Norwegian kroner 1 215 374.

(Bibliography)

• Den lange veien hjem – (2001)
• Delete – crime novel(2003)
• Dreamland.com – kriminalroman (2004)
• Endgame – political thriller/crime novel (2008)
• Fastball – political thriller/crime novel (2009)
• Aftermath –political thriller/crime novel (2010)

(Articles)

• FN veteran advarer mot krigen i Afghanistan. (TV2 innslag 31 mars 2008)
• "Hjalp vi forbryterne til makten", Feature story in Dagbladet 5.11. 2008
• Veteranene (Dagbladet 12.7. 2009)
• «De usynlige soldatene», Feature story in Verdens Gang 16.09.2009
• «Forsvarets verveplakater, Feature story in Verdens Gang, papirutgaven, 1.07.2010
• TV og radiointervju i NRK
• Minnenes terror - NRK faktor
• En meget sterk rus (Verdens Gang 12.10.10)
• E 14: En stat i staten (Feature story in Dagbladet 10.02.11)

References

External links

• Knut A. Braas hjemmeside" --Ribroll (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)