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 May 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 Turabay dynasty • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring • Yugoslav submarine Mališan • Shigi Qutuqu • John Savage (soldier) Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument • HMS Sardonyx (1919) Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal Good article nominees Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • William Henry Harrison Seeley • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) • Battle of Meligalas • Blohm & Voss BV 40 • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • Cultybraggan Camp • HMS Basilisk (1910) • Constantine II (emperor) Good article reassessments Loitering munition • Lockheed YF-22 Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,316) • only work on referencing and citation (43,150) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,433) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,629) • work on structure (31,772) • only work on structure (359) • work on grammar (8,186) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,738) • only work on supporting materials (1,336) • assessment (7) • assessment as lists (123) • project tags fixed (7) • assessment checklists added (11) • assessment checklists completed (32) • task forces added (287) • attention to task force coverage (680)

Notice

See Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command#Requested move 19 May 2022 - wolf 20:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § Should 2 really long obituaries be included in a biography article, word-for-word?

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Should 2 really long obituaries be included in a biography article, word-for-word?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps someone from MILHIST could help sort this out. It might only need to be rewritten, but there might also be a need for revision deleting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Things appear to have been resolved at least for now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Finnish Civil War

I have nominated Finnish Civil War for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 06:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: new scrolling function between articles

In Siege of Acre (1799) you can click the left third of the image within the infobox and you will be scrolled into Siege of Jaffa. If you click the right third of the image you will be brought to Battle of Mount Tabor (1799). The middle third will link to the description of the image. By doing that with imagemap, we would give the reader the opportunity to easily scroll from one battle to the next in sequence. Is this a progress we should use? Ruedi33a (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is a major change to how Wikipedia articles operate. You can have a discussion here to get a rough indication of support but make sure you don't try implementing anything before holding an RFC. Changes on this scale need to be decided by the community and not an individual project. Personally, I would be opposed to this idea as it hides multiple links within an image, which could easily be abused by vandals to misdirect readers to incorrect locations or even spam sites. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the change to Siege of Acre (1799). If you want to test out new concepts, make sure to implement them in a sandbox and not the main article space. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I have found this new concept in The Last Supper (Leonardo)#Subject as an an image built with imagemap with the caption "The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci. (Clickable image—use cursor to identify.)". That means for me that the concept of "clickable images" is allowed in other areas of Wikipedia, so no RFC needed. But the question is indeed open: does it improve the usage enough to risk more complications? I have tested Leonardo's image on a mobile device. It is a great improvement Ruedi33a (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That is an imagemap where clicking on a person goes to a relevant article. You are suggesting arbitrary links, which would conflict with WP:ASTONISH and WP:EASTEREGG. It would also be a horrible to maintain, as it seems the imagemap would need to be updated for image or size changes. (Hohum ^@) 15:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

+1 to Hohum's egg thought. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

+1 Same RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Please look into User:Ruedi33a/sandbox for my last try to solve the astonished egg problem. You are right that a change of the image means also a change to the numbers within rect but a User's Manual is added. It is also correct that more doors are open for vandalism. The usage improvement on a mobile is great. I vote with +1 for the clickable image Next battle/Previous battle concept. Ruedi33a (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding instructions in the caption of the infobox just to tell readers how to use the clickable image is rather clunky. This idea offers no benefit that a pair of text links in the infobox couldn't provide. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks vor all your comments. My suggestion does not fit into the existing structure. Ruedi33a (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Meh... they're just links. Articles are full of them. This is all much ado about nothing. (imho) - wolf 21:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• More cruft - oppose. He's doing this with buildings in Venice, and should stop. Plus it doesn't actually work for me. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

RFC in Talk:Ca' d'Oro created Ruedi33a (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Bombing of Hamburg in World War II

Hey! I've taken over scheduling the featured pictures. Back in 2015, this article was declared to have too many neutrality issues for an image about it to appear on the main page. It's seven years on. Can I get an evaluation of it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 12:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

OOoff....good luck with this. I'm already hearing the "war crimes" and "do it again Bomber Harris" chants.

Disclaimer: I personally believe that we should avoid cultural relativism when looking at the bombing campaign; I'm not sure they were 100% justified in pursuing dehousing as a goal but I'm definitely not a wehraboo apologist.

Cursory glance over the main issues which would likely be problematic: planning and assessment, seem to be ok. Article mentions that the RAF had shifted toward area bombing as a strategy and the source cited and google book previews of other sources backs that up. The assessment section cites many contemporary newspapers and congressional discussion concerning the morality of using a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, later, the morality of developing hydrogen bombs. Those sources seem to check out as well.

The section that is marked as requiring sources for verification is partly sourced further down below in the timeline, though I can't say that all of the stuff in the section is satisfactorily sourced.

Personally, I'd like to see some mention of dehousing. It's a bit odd that there isn't mention of dehousing. The only mention is that the shift to area bombing "was not driven by the inaccuracy of bombing at this stage, but by studying which aspects of the German Blitz on Britain had had most effect." Doesn't mention the potential accuracy in bombing campaigns during training exercises vs the actual (abysmal accuracy) during actual combat missions when bombers were forced to fly at higher altitudes and didn't fly in a straight line (which would make them an easy target for enemy fighters). No mention of the dehousing research and goals which features the bombing of Hamburg as one of its primary examples.

Personally.....I'd shy away from featuring it but I can see the argument that it (in its current form) is adequately neutral.

I may try to do revisions on the article to add those things but no guarantees. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added some text to Bombing of Hamburg in World War II#Political and military pressure which now mentions "dehousing". Feel free to edit if not up to scratch. Alansplodge (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alansplodge: Thanks! Good reminder for me that perfect is the enemy of done (which is tough for me to remember lol) Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

List of wars involving Iran

Dear editors, kindly share your input over a simple content dispute regarding "why the battles of Seleucid empire are not being retained on this article?" at Talk:List of wars involving Iran#Seleucid Empire. 117.99.55.72 (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

WWII Kriegsmarine war diaries

I've recently discovered some WWII Kriegsmarine war diaries online. These have been added to WP:SHIPS/R#Kriegsmarine. If anyone can provide links for missing diaries it would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

AfD notice

The German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of Dalzel-Job, Patrick (1991). From Arctic Snow to Dust of Normandy. Leo Cooper. ISBN 0862998425. to expand the article with? Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I have access to it but am unsure what you're looking for exactly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It may have details of her loss on D-Day, although that seems to be covered sufficiently now. Any other details missing from the article could be added. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Lalakaon FAC

The article on the Battle of Lalakaon has been nominated for featured article but so far has no reviews. All interested Wikipedians are invited to participate. Constantine ✍ 21:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

New idea for history task force that would include multiple history-related WikiProjects

Hi. I am the Lead Coordinator at WP:HIST. I would like to form a task force for "Best Practices in History", which would be a task force to include and to benefit multiple WikiProjects that relate to history topics specifically. any interest? I'd like to get this off the ground if possible. please let me know. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what kind of articles you are looking to put under this task force? ---EngineeringEditor (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

MilitaryFactory as an unreliable source

Saw some discussion about it ~7yr ago on the MP40 page when it was used as a source there. Discussion seemed to agree that it's not a very reliable source. Unfortunately, it's still used rather frequently. I was hoping to discuss two things here: whether it's a reliable source and, if not, is there anything we can do about it to discourage its use?

As to whether it's reliable, I don't think it is. Part of it is gut feeling--it's got this look that reminds me of wikia's and IMDB. It doesn't cite any sources which is troubling. In its defense, it does seem to mention some stuff that is verifiable; for instance, on the M110 SASS page, it mentions a $24,909,740 contract on April 2, 2012 and includes the federal contract W15QKN-12-D-0029. Very easy to check. But it's stuff like the list of operators that really makes my nose twitch. They list a bunch of countries that supposedly use the M110 SASS but they provide zero evidence for it. I'm sure some of them might be correct and if I was familiar with the languages, I might be able to find sources confirming it. But that's a lot of work to....basically do the source's work for them.

If there's agreement that it's not a reliable source, does it rise to the level of being labeled deprecated where it might be added to the edit filter to display warnings if an edit cites it as a source?

Thoughts? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There have also been discussions on RSP about the site, all of which came to the same conclusion. I think its main usage comes down to newer editors not knowing about its issues, and also that nobody's really bothered to go through the (probably hundreds) of articles it's used in and deleting the references. As for deprecation, I believe that's something that only happens for the worst of the worst, sites that have been shown to outright fabricate information, which probably doesn't apply here. Loafiewa (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just figured I'd ask. I took it out of the M110 article already but looking at the 400+ articles which do feature it as a source is daunting and not something I'm up to right now lol. I kinda wish that the criteria for adding sources to that edit filter were a bit more lenient (like maybe include sources that are considered generally unreliable) but that's outside this discussion's wheelhouse.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A little help?

G'day all, sorry I've been AWOL for the last few months. A major project IRL has been impacting on my availability here, so thanks to the rest of the coord team for keeping things shipshape. The project is wrapping up, so I will shortly be back with a vengeance. In the meantime, we could do with some help smashing the backlog of checking Milhistbot's B-Class assessments for March. Plenty of variety, so something for everyone! If we could get this sorted by the end of the month, we'd have a clean slate when May drops, as we just archived April. Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Talking of B-class assessments, German trawler V 209 Carl Röver needs reassessing. Currently stub class but has been given a major expansion today. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Stanley Harley DCM

Please can anyone furnish service record for Stanley Harley DCM (d:Q112152839), the sitter for the statue on Brierley Hill War Memorial? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

2020 Russian invasion of Belarus

Not sure quite what to do with this. It's an article on a supposed putative Russian invasion of Belarus during the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests, that never happened. Half of the six cites are to a single facebook post by the Ukrainian ministry of defence drawing on supposedly leaked material, and the other three are Ukrainian sources of dubious reliability commenting on the post. Given the current military and international situation this is all highly problematic. There's an obvious advantage to these Ukrainian sources in depicting Russia as having plans to invade other countries at other times. If there was follow up and critical analysis of the claims from independent and reliable sources, that would be something, but so far that doesn't seem to have happened. There's not really anything reliably sourced to even merge into 2020–2021 Belarusian protests. My thought is to take this to AFD but does anyone have any other thoughts? Spokoyni (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

merge at best, delete at worst. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed & Welcomed to get a page Approved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yitzhak_Suknik

This page about a fighter in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was deleted (now in Draft for 6 month reprieve) the main issues being:

1. Yitzhak is not important enough to be included in Wikipedia
2. Insufficient references
3. Too much on the events surrounding Yitzhak's actions compared to the Yitzhak himself.
4. Style

Point 1. I attempted to deal with this point here but got no response. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koza - Yitzhak Suknik

Point 2. I have used every source available,namely 5 books where his actions are described and I have edited the reference section etc.

Point 3. Re-edited and slashed to a minimum ( I think)

Point 4. Tried as much as possible but found the instructions and guides baffling.

I have received no response about the changes I have made since the original article.
The person who 'pressed the button' to delete the article admitted that they are not expected to be experts or knowledgeable in the field and are not obliged to reply to my counterarguments.
I am unsure of what else to do to get it approved. Any and all guidance welcome.
JSKutcher (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, if you reach GNG, the article will be good to go. I recommend having at least three reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, which in this case about the person. Here's a good essay about that. BTW, you have put some excellent effort into this article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi FieldMarine, Many thanks for your comments. I read the GNG & Essay I have 5 reliable sources which mention Yitzhak specifically and his actions, but this did not appear to be enough. Which is odd as someone pointed out this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Rayzner which had even less. I have also noted that on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto in the People of the Warsaw Ghetto Section that there is a similar threat to delete names

I am also not sure how or even when to resubmit the article without having to go through the deletion process yet again. Any guidance on this is welcome. Regards JSKutcher (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have had a quick look but I can see why there is some opposition to this draft article going into main space. As tragic as his story is, the subject seems to be one of several brave and courageous resistance fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto and I am not convinced that there is "significant coverage" in the sources. I also have some concerns about the existing sourcing - I notice use of at least one primary source - the death certificate. Also note 2 appears to be to your own website, seeing as the url is the same as your user name. So that would not be an independent source. Suknik also doesn't seem to be mentioned in "The Warsaw Ghetto Revolt" when searching inside using Google. Looking at the portions for which that book is cited, I would have expected him to be mentioned. I hope you can get this over the line but it will be a struggle from what I can see. Just a note regarding to your comment on Joshua Rayzner, that is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Zawed (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe the deletion process can happen any time, so I'm not sure there is a way to get around that. In anticipation of that, you can identify on the Draft talk:Yitzhak Suknik the three sources you believe are reliable, independent secondary sources and why each one contains significant coverage of Suknik. It looks like some of them may be in Polish, or are not available electronically, so a summary will help people better understand why they have significant coverage. Coverage needs to be well beyond "trivial mentions" of the person. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi FieldMarine. I have just been contacted by a person who has some independent secondary resources in Yiddish which he is going to add & hope it will help the process. Point taken about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Thanks again JSKutcher (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@FieldMarine, this [1] from Warsaw Ghetto Museum should be a clear WP:GNG point, right? Now, @JSKutcher may have a WP:SELFCITE "thing" regarding it, but it still seems like a good source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was discussed at the afd:[2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding war service cats to articles on people

Please see discussion on Talk:Ian Wolfe#World War I service about including "Category:United States Army personnel of World War I". This discussion relates to the broader issue of when to include wartime cats to articles on people. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on a World War II summit and the American space program

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

IP editor and HMS Royalist (89)

Would anyone mind having a look at Talk:HMS Royalist (89) - the section where I and @Nigel Ish: - are 'criticised' - and offer an opinion as to how I should (if I should) engage with the IP user, or whatever is the appropriate action. Is some sort of page protection necessary?GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

A problem of identification

• 
  David McMurtrie Gregg, with the exact same button unbuttoned, hairstyle, face, and beard...
• 
  ... as his cousin, John Irvin Gregg

I checked, and the LOC cites a source, the NARA does not, but it's not clear which Gregg is which. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 12:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Nice catch. The photographs are David M. Gregg; John is below. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

John Irvin Gregg

I've consulted Tagg's Generals of Gettysburg and can confirm that the image in question bears much resemblance to David McM. Gregg, and not near as much to John I. Hog Farm _Talk 12:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Right! Well, after lunch, I'll see about renaming everything. And trying to get something to put in John's article thrown together from the remains of that negative. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 13:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Rename discussion at English longbow

For those here who may be interested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_longbow#Rename?