Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The August 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 Jozo Tomasevich • Battle of Saipan • Siege of Baghdad • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Castlereagh–Canning duel Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Suleiman I of Candar • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Mehmed of Dulkadir • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) • Rumpler 6B • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Soviet cruiser Vladivostok • Sack of Delhi (1757) Good article reassessments 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) • 2008 Mumbai attacks • United States Special Operations Command • Kony 2012 Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,022) • only work on referencing and citation (43,197) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,232) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,788) • work on structure (31,838) • only work on structure (361) • work on grammar (8,170) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,846) • only work on supporting materials (1,338) • assessment (6) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (0) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (1) • task forces added (2) • attention to task force coverage (656)

Featured Article Candidates

Greetings all. There are a number of Featured Article Candidates related to this Wikiproject that could use more reviews, including:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/August Meyszner/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iazyges/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Arrah/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prince Romerson/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Paravane/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spalding War Memorial/archive1

I'd have a go myself (except for the one I nominated) but I lack the required skill & knowledge of the myriad policies & procedures around that level of reviewing! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day Exemplo347. Have a go anyway, I believe that if you can nominate an article for FAC, you can no doubt make a contribution in reviewing other FACs. I'm sure the nominators will appreciate your input. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi all, I currently have Henry Morgan going through the FAC process at the moment. It has several "Supports" and is nearly finished, but one of the co-ordinators has requested a spot check on the sources (as it's my first FA). Is anyone able to pick up on this? I'm not sure if any of you wil have access to the sources, so I would be happy to email you scans of specific pages (or downloads of DNB pages) to make the process easier - just let me know the page/source and email me so I have your email address, and I'll ping them over. Many thanks if anyone is able to undertake this. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Unit names in German or English?

Over at Norwegian Campaign order of battle an anonymous user is insisting on the use of the German name "11th Schützen-Brigade" in place of "German 11th Motorized Rifle Brigade". Now, my understanding of WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME is that unit names should be in English ("A name originally in a language other than English should be adapted by translating common terms (such as designations of size and type) and transliterating the remainder of the name.").

The link "Schützen" does lead to a World War II German word for "motorized or mechanized infantry", but the IP user insists on the 19th century term Schützen (military) being correct, arguing that seeing as we don't necessarily translate ranks, we shouldn't translate unit names either. What would be the correct term to use for such a unit? Manxruler (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd lean toward using the English translation unless it's a more commonly known unit type (eg: 2nd Panzer Division). In this case, "Motorized Rifle Brigade" would be appropriate. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Do both.Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

At first use I mean.Keith-264 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What Keith said, although I'm indifferent to which one is used afterwards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm indifferent too. I'd go with Schützen myself; "11th Schützen Brigade" is partly translated by translating number and type. But I don't think that Schützen is nearly as well known as Panzer or Panzergrenadier. The point is that like ranks, we lose a little information in translation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Does this apply to the naming of a unit in an article not primarily about that unit, though?

The way I understand WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME is that the translated name/original name combo mention is for articles about the units in question. I'm completely on board with mentioning both the translated and original names of a unit in an article about said unit, but if we're going to do that every time we mention units in other articles, that would become rather cumbersome quite quickly. Manxruler (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The above text by me was removed by 70.26. Reinstated by me now. Manxruler (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No, just the first time it's mentioned, not all the time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that, but still, that's potentially a lot of double naming in articles that mention more than a few units. Has this been done before? I can't remember seeing that anywhere, and looking at a few recent FA articles, I can't find that sort of system. Manxruler (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

From the same order of battle for Norway: Panzer-Abteilung 40 ... so this should be "panzer unit for special purpose deployment" (Panzer Abteilung zur besonderer Vervendung)? It all seems, in the end, pretty arbitrary to me, so why not stick with the REAL names? Can't go wrong doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2017

It was an accident as we both posted almost simultaneously. Lighten up, will you. Or is that "Aufhellen, werden Sie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, I personally prefer translating the unit names. Readers simply can't be expected to understand what terms like "Schützen" or "Panzer Abteilung" mean. Moreover, privileging German terms by not translating them isn't sensible given that we, of course, translate the names of units from languages which don't use Roman letters. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There are occasions where I wouldn't translate because the translated name of the unit is misleading, but this is not such a case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I've used zur besonderer Vervendung (zbV) before now for the first go, to introduce the term and an abbreviation since zbV crops up enough to make it worthwhile. Since translated terms aren't always transliterations, putting the foreign term in at first use seems sensible as long as we don't make a fetish of it. Italian unit names are unwieldy but I settled on giving the number, type and name in blue at first mention then the name only as an abbreviation (Sibelle Division). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You have to bear in mind where the reader is coming from. If the chances are the book they are reading says something like Panzer-Abteilung 40, then that's why we should use (or at least have a redirect). The readers can't type in names in other scripts; but they may try to look up, say Kido Butai. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly in that readers should be able to search for units in other languages. This can be achieved by redirects, which I believe is commonly used by many article creators (at least I believe I do that relatively consistently). Manxruler (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Moreover, privileging German terms by not translating them isn't sensible given that we, of course, translate the names of units from languages which don't use Roman letters. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)" You certainly have to be careful about this, as critics have long pointed to a "Nazi fetish" in the historiography of World War Two. You know, not obvious stuff like out right worship, but showing favouritism by using German terminology (opposed to Russian or French) and giving false equivalence to arguments by Germans or Nazis (Rommel, Manstein, Carius) when, in fact, they were the losers. Big time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk)

Personally I'd go for the actual name every time as long as it's in the Roman alphabet. Not "privileging German terms", as I'd also do it for French, Italian, Spanish or any other language. The English translation can always be added in parentheses if it's deemed necessary. I don't see the need for an encyclopaedia to cater to the lowest common denominator and translations are frequently not wholly accurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a really good idea, just use REAL names from each national language, where ever feasibly possible, and use translation where needed. Avoids favouritism, which can be insidious. You can add Guderian, Mellenthin, Luck and that most odious of Nazis, Rudel, to the list of Germans who are shown, in my opinion, unwarranted deference. But, all of them wrote bestsellers, in English. Go figger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, at the moment, the guidelines do support the concept of translating unit names (and that we "...should follow the conventions employed by reputable historical works on the topic." when doing the translations) I think we should follow the guidelines. We are writing for our readers, after all, and words like "Schützen" will make no sense to most readers (I read German-language books frequently, and I had to break out my dictionaries to figure that one out). Manxruler (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

And Nazis don't really seem relevant to me. German unit names are after all translated, just like Russian and French unit names. Some words, like "Panzer", are commonly used in English, of course. Manxruler (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That's the crux of it; some words are not normally translated. This not restricted to German; it does occur with other languages too, particularly French: Zouave, Chausseur, Tirailleur etc. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. When the words are commonly used in English-language texts, they're not translated on Wikipedia. Manxruler (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add to this discussion that there seems to be a problem with the IP (70.26.44.231) which is the cause for this discussion. I have no idea what this person is up to, but besides the "Norwegian Order of Battle" article it is also very active on the Panzer-Abteilung 40 article. The problem is (s)he does not seem to understand that they are introducing multiple spelling errors (of the German words) into the article. I tried to correct the IP but (s)he just reverts and gets increasingly aggressive. This IP also introduced some badly formatted nonsense paragraphs which (s)he copied from some internet web-blogs and forums (achtungpanzer.com, feldgrau.com). Every attempt to somehow straighten that gets reverted. After a lot of tries the IP improved the formatting, but the sources are still bad, it is still directly copied from those webpages and there are still spelling errors. And now he is stalking my previously edited articles and messes them up by deleting material and stuff. -_- Dead Mary (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Pal, as you suggested, rudely, I have corrected the spelling. I have added useful information to the article which in 2 cases I have cited thrice. The formatting is absolutely fine, and the info therein is useful to the context of the article. Upon seeing other pages you boasted about on your page, it became clear to me that your forte is NOT writing in the English language, which you admit is not your first language. So I endeavored to improve those pages by editing out the superfluous and redundant verbiage and making them read more smoothly and elegantly. Less is more. As for the information from achtungpanzer.com and feldgrau.com, in my opinion very useful stuff which somebody must have taken time and trouble to make accessible, freely, to the world wide web, SHOW ME how it is in error or wrong. Don't bother. The answer is you can't. STOP taking OWNERSHIP of the articles you mentioned, they aren't yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have semi protected the article for one week to prevent edit warring. Please discuss these changes rationally on the talk page and establish consensus for them before re-adding them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. But he has a new target now, he is currently deleting half of the Operation Arctic Fox article. Guess he is now going through every article I have ever written. :D Dead Mary (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, come on Pal, you have to admit my edits greatly improve the readability of the article. Good grief, what is wrong with that? I put some effort and time in to making that article better. I'd figure "Thank you / merci / danke" would be the appropriate response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Swedish Navy prefix

Should it be HMS or HSwMS? While expanding Arcturus (disambiguation), I found HMS used in 1.-class torpedo boat and the Swedish Wikipedia (e.g. HMS Arcturus (T110)) and HSwMS in List of Swedish Navy ships: A-B. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Clarityfiend, HMS (Hans or Hennes Majestäts Skepp) is the official designation. However they often use HSwMS while abroad to avoid confusion with the British HMS prefix. I would say that as the normal person thinks british navy upon seeing HMS, and as per what appears to be common practice, they should retain HSwMS on English wikipedia. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

There are different citations cited throughout different pages, such as Swedish Navy, Her Majesty's Ship, etc., but they are all dead links, I am looking for a live one to state it. Ship prefix also states it, but without a citation. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

After a thorough discussion (I'll go look and see if I can find where), the conclusion was that HSwMS is used in English-language sources, including by the Swedish military, and that using HMS for Swedish ships would create unnecessary confusion with British ships. This is especially relevant as the United Kingdom and Sweden have used a lot of identical ship names. Manxruler (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been digging, per COMMONNAME it would make sense to have it be HSwMS, as that is its international name, and its NATO name. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what I suspected, but I wanted to make sure before I made extensive changes (e.g. 1.-class torpedo boat). Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarityfiend, It may be worthwhile to have an RFC to end the sporadic discussion. I'd happily write one up if you would like to proceed. Of course, as HSwMS has a sort of de facto convention, it's not critically necessary, but it could end future debates. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that'd be necessary, especially if Manxruler can find the previous discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe the closest to consensus was at [1]. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Found the 2012 discussion I recalled, which came to the conclusion that using HSwMS for Swedish ships is best. The Swedish military approves of HSwMS, and using HMS for Swedish ships only creates unnecessary confusion with British ships (and there are a whole lot of Swedish and British warships with the same names). Manxruler (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Just for reference, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_37#HMS.2FHSwMS_etcÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Map creation

I'd like to be able to create and edit maps, primarily national and sub-national (states/provinces) for use on both on WP and non-WP projects. Anyone have some suggestions about the best software or tools to do this, hopefully free or very inexpensively? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat: You might want to look here. They list free software and have some tutorials on map making.--Catlemur (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. - BilCat (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Also WP:WikiProject Maps for conventions in style, colour, etc. GIMP/Photoshop is fine for png/jpg, and Inkscape for svg. (Hohum ^@) 02:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day. FYI there is an Academy article on military map making that might be useful to you here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Creating maps. Anotherclown (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Trafalgar

We've got a situation where a new editor making reasonable edits in good faith is getting bitten. To prevent an edit war, I've opened a discussion at talk:Battle of Trafalgar#Loose or looser?. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Finding sources

Many of you may already know about this, but if you do not, please feel free to utilize our Resource Exchange to receive access to non-free sources. The Resource Exchange allows you to post a request for a specific journal article, excerpt of a book, or other source. Volunteers who have access to these materials through research and educational institutions are able to provide digital copies of most sources. This is a great resource for when you find a helpful citation somewhere but are unable to locate a copy of the source itself. Let me know if you have any questions!

Please note that these resources are shared only for use creating or improving specific identified Wikipedia articles, and we cannot provide full book scans or excessive amounts of material beyond what is necessary to improve an article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinking to named ships for which there is only an article for the whole class of ship

Is it appropriate to add a wikilink around a name of a ship to the article for the class of ship that it belongs to, where there is no article for the individual ship in question? e.g. wikilinking the destroyer Smyshlyonyi to Soobrazitelnyy-class destroyer. Alcherin (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that you wanted to change a redlink for a single ship into a blue link for that ship's class. Nothing wrong with redlinks, so I'd advise against doing that in general.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Piped links can be a surprise, i.e. easter egg if not done correctly. It helps to include a section label in link to point to the right target, in general. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it is more appropriate to have the ship name either not linked, or redlinked. However, I would also word the text so as to clearly label the class name of the ship, and have that class name link to the ship class article. Rhialto (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

What might be the best solution is to link to the ship name and then create a redirect from the ship to the class. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

work on the de Havilland Vampire

I've recently been going through one of the books in my possession, trying to better round out the history of the de Havilland Vampire, one of the first generation of jet aircraft to be produced and operated. Although I've been able to contribute a lot from this book, there's still a lot missing from this article in my opinion. Aside from the obvious in the form of the Citation Needed tags, I feel that the Operational History for the type still isn't up to scratch, which is where I felt that some here might find the topic appealing. Almost ten years ago, a editor pointed out on the talk page that the Vampire's extensive combat history on the Middle East, with operators such as Jordan and Egypt, was barely being touched on, and it hasn't come far in that time at all.

Sadly my book didn't cover much on this topic, and I do plan to seek out other literature in the future that could fill in more of the different nation's histories of using the type, but perhaps someone here already has a good source on hand that they could share, or could do their own searches. I'd like to bring the standard and scope of content on the article more in line with that of the Gloster Meteor if that is possible, it's a lofty goal if possible, but users have been able to make a substantial difference already in the last 12 months, so I'm sure improvements won't be impossible so long as editors are inclined to give it attention. Thanks Kyteto (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kyteto, funnily enough I recently had to go to a Vampire ref to get some info for a bio, Alan Rawlinson -- that was Watkins' History of the de Havilland Vampire (2013), which seemed to cover a fair bit on operational history in the RAF and in the service of other nations, including Australia (I note it's already in the reflist of the Vampire article). Beyond adding more from this book, I could flesh out the Australian section of the Vampire article with some other sources, although I'd be concerned that it would overbalance the article if the other countries' sections were not similarly enhanced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That sounds pretty promising - I wouldn't worry too much about overwhelming the page with Australian-specific history, if it did happen, it would then be reasonable to create a specific subarticle for it, like has been done in prior cases like Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service. Kyteto (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Blue-water navy

We are having an ongoing debate on the removal of the UK as a blue water navy in the article. Could anyone with more detailed information please chime in? Rhialto (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• This debate is merely based on one personal opinion with no appearing merit in the argument. The article lead sections defines A blue-water navy is a maritime force capable of operating globally; essentially across the deep waters of open oceans. A term more often used in the United Kingdom to describe such a force is a navy possessing maritime expeditionary capabilities. Those navies may be less powerful then decades ago but that doesn´t change their nature. And terrorism or the ability to counter such, which is not their primary objective, has nothing to do with that. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Captain American in popular culture

Maybe this isn't entirely within the average scope of this project, but there is currently discussion at Talk:Captain America#Reception or Cultural impact section regarding how the character has been used in various real-world situations. I think maybe some of you here might have access to some sources that comics' editors might not think of or have the same sort of quick access to. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

the Wikiproject Euro 10K

Adding template WPEUR10k template to the top of talk page in related articles, and entering the article on the related page here would help the project and contest. If you are working on such articles anyway.....auntieruth (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Brisbane

There has been a slow boiling edit war going on there involving a contentious section that I have temporarily removed from the article pending talk page consensus. I was wondering if there are any editors here who would care to give a hand in sorting this out. Since I am dealing with this in my capacity as an admin I don't want to get involved in the underlying content dispute. Any assistance would be much appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

CC: Boing! said Zebedee- Mr rnddude- Wayne

I'm keeping an eye on it too, again purely in an administrative capacity (and I don't know anything about the content even if I wanted to get involved in that). I support Ad Orientem's temporary removal of the disputed section, and it really would be great if we could get enough knowledgeable editors to reach a consensus on what that section should say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: - I find myself to be very knowledgeable about WWII, so I'll look into this to see if it's even accurate information in the first place. I'll report back with my findings when I'm done. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. There is an active discussion on the article's talk page. The main author of the disputed section should be able to join the discussion a little later today. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The first link has only one or two lines about the topic at hand. It's also a first person POV, so I'm not sure if it's even appropriate for use. (EC) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk)

@Ad Orientem: - I've been scouring Google for sources and I've only found one source that actually backs up the claim of racial tension, and I am unsure of it's reliability. It's an obscure reference that has about two paragraphs, out of many, that actually describe the racial tension. Its reliability is questionable so I'll leave it up to you to look through. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk)

The article Ad Orientem is unsure of in regards to reliability is I believe co-written by Jacqui Donegan who is a graduate of The Australian National University and Raymond Evans, an adjunct professor of history at Griffith University. I may be wrong so I'll have to check. Wayne (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The book 'Yanks Down Under 1941–1945' Oxford University Press has a chapter mentioning the racial tensions that contrasts Australian attitudes of acceptance compared to American attitudes of rejection of African Americans. The book 'A Freedom Bought with Blood' UNC Press mentions a series of conflicts between American soldiers and African American soldiers in Brisbane over a 2 week period in March 1942. This government website also very briefly mentions that race relations contributed to major confrontations. Much of the information is not online, when I have time I'll look for more.. Wayne (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist organizations?

Do militarized terrorist organizations fall under the scope of our project? Not just ISIS or al-Qaeda, but other militants like Boko Haram and the IRA as well. I'm wondering because I was reading about the Provisional IRA, and there was no tag for our project despite the IRA being classified as a 'paramilitary terrorist cell'. I then proceeded to venture to the page on ISIS, which had no tag either, even though ISIS is a recognized militarized jihadist group. I think they should be included if not already. Because each group has been a belligerent in one or more wars. Food for thought. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

They're well within scope, according to my reading of 'What topics do we cover?' on the main page. If there are untagged articles, please consider adding the tags. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Who decides which violent organisations are terrorist and which ones aren't? Keith-264 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Negative. I think it risks a flood of editors who have very different interests and will not help military historians. Rjensen (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I would thik the governments of the world would. I know that some of these group are designated, like ISIS, Boko Haram and the IRA. I know the KKK isn't so they wouldn't fall under our scope. Some of them are a grey area, like the Animal Liberation Front and Neo-Nazism. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Like the Harrods bombings or the November 2015 Paris Attacks. The Harrods was part of The Troubles and the Paris Attacks were part of the War on Terror. We cover the overall operations, why not the attacks that were part of the operations? They're very similar to battles in many senses. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The concept of terrorism exists to normalise state violence, by fabricating a fig-leaf of respectability for some violent organisations at the expense of others. Hmmm, that could make a good article....Keith-264 (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The IRA always maintained that they were fighting a war. They also wanted to be treated as Prisoners of War by the British; so from that point of view they should be included.The joy of all things (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If they maintained that they were Gods and wanted to be treated as such, would we automatially add them to WikiProject Religion? Just because an organisation claims to be one thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are. I think a review of how such organisations are described the mainstream literature, rather than by themselves, would remove any undue POV from the matter. - The Bounder (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Depends on which mainstream literature you are relying on. In the British press/books they would be terrorists, other places may be less quick to label them so.The joy of all things (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

They were at first, criminalising prisoners is what set off the hunger strikes.Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The term terrorist is being routinely used by states to describe violent non state actors. If you look at the Official History of the Greek Civil War (it was published at the time of the military junta), communist guerillas are described as bandits and terrorists, nowadays they are considered rebels. Similarly the British called EOKA members terrorists, now they are almost universally recognized as freedom fighters and representatives of the Cypriot people (because they won). Boko Haram is a bad example because they actually controlled and administered territory. The real question is urban guerilla campaigns, where the rebels make sporadic hit and run attacks/bombings without achieving much.--Catlemur (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"universally recognized as freedom fighters": terrorists and freedom fighters are two halves of the same coin, it just depends on whether you support or oppose their aims as to what names you'll call them. - The Bounder (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The coin has three halves, terrorists, freedom fighters and states. The institutionalisation of emergency laws since the 1970s makes it hard to tell the difference. Keith-264 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I think both 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' violates NPOV. We should use the term 'militant group' or 'militants' instead to keep a neutral point of view. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"Militant (group)" also violates NPOV! Getting the terminology settled in the first instance is not a straight-forward step! - The Bounder (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

How does 'militant group' violate NPOV? Genuinely curious. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a simple euphamism for terrorist, and carries the NPOV. See Militant#Mass media usage: the confusion in definiation is common, but it certainly isn't "neutral". - The Bounder (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Surgeon General of the US Navy

I just placed a note on the Talk page for Surgeon General of the United States Navy. Would a project member be able to fix the problem I came across? Eagle4000 (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)