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 September newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Battle of Saipan • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • The Motherland Calls • Jochi • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Robert Poore • Chagatai Khan • Boot Monument • Roswell incident • Busbridge War Memorial Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS • Operation Matterhorn logistics • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. Peer reviews Henry Clay Work • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Sark Good article nominees Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Felek al-Din Dündar • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Eleanor of Castile • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Jarrett Robertson • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Sack of Delhi (1757) • Black and Tans • Castlereagh–Canning duel • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Piri Reis • Patrick J. Ryan (chaplain) • George Preece • Francis L. Sampson • HMS Regulus (1785) • Spanish Christian–Muslim War of 1172–1212 • Italian Campaign of 1796–1797 • Pandour Corps • Central Powers • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Shadia Abu Ghazaleh • SMS Otter (1877) • SMS Jäger • HMS Swallow (1744) • Battle of Köse Dağ Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,649) • only work on referencing and citation (43,246) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,992) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,909) • work on structure (31,889) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,172) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,963) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (7) • assessment as lists (7) • project tags fixed (3) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (2) • task forces added (1) • attention to task force coverage (655)

Copyright concerns related to your project 1

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here. (Just as a note - much of what I've seen myself is close paraphrasing.)

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I am interested what articles have copyright material. Since there are two CCI copyright problems. Adamdaley (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

new article: Economic history of World War I

I have started a new article on Economic history of World War I and have begun with a working bibliography and a few entries. I plan to add a lot more in the next few days -- some excerpts from existing articles and some new material. I got started by reading up on John Maynard Keynes, the British economist who handled financing for Britain & most of its allies. Comments and advice is most welcome! Rjensen (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A great topic for an article! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed ... your articles are fantastic, Dr. Jensen. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Unidentified World War I Unit

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

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

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

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

Glenn Defense Marine Asia

I'll create Glenn Defense Marine Asia seven hours from now, unless somebody else jumps in first. I've added links to the talk page. Hcobb (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You've already created Glenn Marine Group, which has been Prodded once, and will likely be AFDed soon. Creating another stub about basically the same issue (bribery), with little additional content, is probably not a good idea. The main article can easily hold any content on subsidiaries for the time being. - BilCat (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Stub articles

I've gone through a few thousand articles and have placed a few here: User:Adamdaley/Articles needing assessment. Anyone can have a go at assessing them. Adamdaley (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish Empire wording dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Support Seems acceptable. Intothatdarkness 16:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
8. Support It is clear that the sources support the use of Turkey (and derivatives) in this context. Zawed (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
9. Support the Ottoman Turks were an ethnic group that founded the Empire and ran it in 1914. A very important development in the decade before 1914 was that the "Young Turk" element came to power with the goal of minimizing non-Turkish roles. (for example, Greeks & Armenians were forced out of many private business they owned--see Erik J. Zürcher (2004). Turkey: A Modern History, Revised Edition. p. 126.) Historians have not had a problem with "Turkish" -- which covers the ethnic leadership (the generals), and the language of command of both the Empire and its army. The Arabs were under Turkish control & did not like it. Ditto the Greeks & Armenians. Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
10. Support The Ottomans were Turks. I appreciate Rksp's point, but we don't have a term for all the citizens of the Ottoman Empire. This is not unusual. Even today there is scarcely a European or Middle Eastern country without an important ethnic minority. And in Turkey, there is a deliberate policy of posting soldiers to areas far from where they come. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
11. Oppose the use of a colloquial term which covers up the diversity of the men who served in the Ottoman Army. They came from Turkey, certainly, but also from Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and from present day Israel.--Rskp (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
12. Oppose a) the removal of the POV tag while the British Empire continues to be consistently referred to, but the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Army are not, and while the 5th Mounted Brigade is consistently referred to in full while the light horse and mounted rifles units are not. --Rskp (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose b) as "the context is clearly in favour of this term" does not recognise "the sky is blue" status of the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman Army. --Rskp (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Which HMS Barracouta?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Arrows userbox

I don't know if somebody has already made one of these for the Red Arrows but I have just made one, add {{User:Nathan121212/userboxes/Redarrows}} to your talkpage to get this:

This user is a fan of the Red Arrows.

Nathan121212 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

AfD on White Terror

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Terror. – S. Rich (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

First Indochina War infobox

Infobox has recently been changed a few times by an IP without discussion. This issue has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page in the past and the current pattern of edits is similar to previous instances. Current version of the infobox reflects the fact that there is no consensus at this time for the addition of this material and as such I have reverted and requested discussion as part of BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS. This has now happened a couple of times with the edit being made without any discussion. I have now asked the IP on his/her talk page to discuss first so will see if that works. Would appreciate other editors having a look though because I've had my three. Although in the past I have stated that I don't think the material should be included (and said as much in several discussions) I personally don't care as long as the edits are reflective of community consensus. At the moment they just seem to be disruptive. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Echo what AC says. I've watchlisted and reverted a few times with requests to discuss on the talk page but the problem persists. It's mostly IPs so I wonder if some level of protection isn't warranted -- perhaps one of our people who's also an admin could take a look and consider... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the correct location to request semi-protection. Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Lucy Higgs Nichols

New article on an American Civil War nurse who was made an honorary member of the Grand Army of the Republic – needs clean up and better referencing. Plenty of sources are listed but there are very few inline citations, and most of those are bare URLS. Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter - November 14

[Copied from my talk page. Milhist will be participating. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)]

Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No Gun Ri Massacre‎, still

Per the above, #No Gun Ri Massacre‎, it has now bubbled up onto Wikipedia:ANI#Attention urgently needed-Attack on No Gun Ri Massacre. Looks like it's mainly a content dispute badly needing input from an impartial, interested editor with a good grasp of WP:V and WP:RS. Any takers? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

H-18 bomber

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20131113000004

Is the H-18 bomber solid enough to support a page yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 November 2013‎ (UTC)

If that's the only source, or if all other sources are of the same ilk, ie opinion or blogs, then no. - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

World War

I could use a few more eyes on the talk page. I think I am on the right track, but I would really appreciate others' thoughts [2]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

List of ISAF installations in Afghanistan

Good Afternoon

There is a proposal on the Talk:List of ISAF installations in Afghanistan page to change the structure of the article from alphabetically based on installation type and name to an idea where there are different tables for each regional command then alphabetically on installation type and name. Gavbadger (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Archiving too quickly?

Isn't 7 days a rather short period of inactivity after which to archive a discussion on this page? I wanted to respond to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Small caps for codenames and found it was moved here. What's the procedure to resurrect such a discussion? Just create a new section or copy/move the old discussion from the archive back to the current page? Any thoughts on lengthening the archive time to 14 or 30 days for those of us that tend to get busy? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This talk page would fill up fast if the archive time was lengthened too much. Maybe increase to 10 days first and see how that works for a few weeks. For restarting a discussion, I suggest starting a new section with a link to the 'old' discussion like you did above and go from there. That way the archived discussion is not repeated. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, this talk page is shorter than usual. Feel free to link to the archived discussion and continue the discussion here or start a new section. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

GLAM Pritzker

Did you know that there is a Wikipedia GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, and Museums) project for Military History? The Pritzker Military Museum & Library recently joined Wikipedia as a GLAM institution. For details, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker

What does this mean for military history editors? It means that there are now additional resources to improve the articles that you are editing or writing. If you have questions, post to my talk page. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Marine (military) move discussion

The title for Marine (military) is being discussed at Talk:Marine (military)#Requested move. Comments are welcome. - BilCat (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Here's another one which needs attention. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Signpost needs some help

... some assembly required.

Hello everyone. With increasing real life pressures taking their toll on the Signpost's "Featured content" writer, I'm looking for a few people to take up writing it. The bare minimum each week looks like this; the majority of your time would be spent writing the informative blurbs. Having multiple editors (drag a friend with you!) makes the process much shorter, and three or more could allow you to go out and interview some of Wikipedia's hard-working and underappreciated content creators. Would you like to take the plunge? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting SNCF article WWII section

Hello again to the members of this Wikipedia project, my name is Jerry Ray, and I am a consultant to SNCF in Washington, DC. Last year, I introduced myself here and asked for the help of independent editors to discuss inaccuracies in the information about WWII in the SNCF article. I would like to revisit this information to focus on two particular statements that remain, but which I feel are inaccurate and have been disputed.

Per my messages last year, this is a very complicated and sensitive subject, but due to this I feel that it deserves to be treated carefully and accurately. The section was much improved last year and there are just two statements that I now seek to address. On the Talk:SNCF page, I have explained these and offered a suggestion to add an alternative view, which you can see via this link: Talk:SNCF#Suggestion. I am interested to hear the feedback of editors from this project. Is there anyone who can assist? Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)