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 Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Battle of Plum Point Bend • Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • West Point, New York • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers Good article nominees Stephen Badlam • Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar • Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Battle of Ekiokpagha • 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 • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present) Good article reassessments Crusading movement • Golubac Fortress Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,179) • only work on referencing and citation (43,151) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,278) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,597) • work on structure (31,791) • only work on structure (360) • work on grammar (8,199) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,713) • only work on supporting materials (1,333) • assessment (14) • assessment as lists (120) • project tags fixed (8) • assessment checklists added (11) • assessment checklists completed (45) • task forces added (308) • attention to task force coverage (680)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2018 now open!

Military historian of the year 2018

• 
  First place
• 
  Second place
• 
  Third place

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will commence on 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2018 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2018. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~
• Sturmvogel 66: For his tireless work improving/creating ship articles, such as NMS Regele Ferdinand, NMS Regina Maria, and countless others. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Gog the Mild: An impressive contribution of original and improved content relating to medieval military history. Recent examples include: Battle of Auberoche, Gascon campaign of 1345 and Siege of Berwick (1333). Also has had the odd foray into other periods, e.g. WWII with Razing of Friesoythe. Zawed (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• User:MilHistBot: Its made life just so much easier. So very much easier. And for that it deserves thanks. A lot of it. Viva la bot! TomStar81 (Talk) 13:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• User:Cplakidas (formerly Constantine): For their contributions to older, less popular military history in diverse places e.g. Battle of Azaz (1030) and Battle of Hulao. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• User:Hawkeye7 his efforts in expanding Milhistbot are reason enough, but his work on nuclear weapons history, across a range of articles including bios, projects and facilities really continues to impress. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• User:K.e.coffman His efforts to maintain honesty both within and outside of the articles space is admirable, as is the fact that he sticks to his guns and never resorts to foul language or underhanded tactics. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully decline, per my comment here: [1]. It would not be right for me to be a part of the process. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Kges1901: Will probably crack 100 articles in the contest this year, currently running third in the tally. Lots of GAs and A-Class articles in 2018, mainly on Soviet/Russian subjects. Also stepped up as a new coord this year and is getting stuck into every job that needs doing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• User:Peacemaker67 A bellwether and touchstone to the project who seems to be everywhere behind the scenes. Somehow they also manage to continue creating; eg recently fleshing out the Featured Topic 1st Army Group by adding every component division - at A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for thinking of me, Gog, but I've more than had my time in the sun over recent years, and would really like to see others recognised for their considerable contributions. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Adamdaley: Adam is a prolific tagger and assessor whose main area of work is out of sight for most project members. His work on the backlog, on fixing up banner syntax and other actions is under appreciated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• GELongstreet: Another gnomish user, GELongstreet has over many years tagged articles for the project and made sure that American Civil War units are linked properly. Kges1901 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert: His continuing work in the project is commendable. He also ranks well in the contest this year, as he did in the past years. He has become one of the foundations keeping this project running. Arius1998 (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Djmaschek: His tireless work in the project is notable. His reviews have been helpful in assessing and improving articles wherein the project is concerned. Arius1998 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• TomStar81: His active work in the project is worthy of recognition. In addition, his excellent contributions for the project's newsletter has become one of the Bugle's key components. Arius1998 (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Ian Rose and Nick-D for their sterling efforts as editors of The Bugle while still creating high quality content like Eastern Area Command (RAAF) and Western Australian emergency of March 1944 respectively. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Indy beetle: a consistent editor since 2016, Indy has been active in trying to fill some of the holes that exist in our coverage in various areas, including topics related to Africa (such as Operation Grandslam and more recently Fall of Kampala). They have also been very active in supporting the project's A-class review process, providing insightful comments that have helped improved the standard of a diverse range of articles. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Zawed: a registered Wikipedian since 2010, Zawed has been a constant contributor to Milhist over the years. In terms of raw edit numbers, 2018 has been their biggest year, and it has seen them step up as a co-opted co-ord, carrying out some of the more mundane procedures required to keep the project ticking (closing reviews, handing out awards, etc). They have also found time to produce some fantastic content (William Edward Sanders and Harry Laurent some recent examples). Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Factotem: a registered editor since 2007, nevertheless 2017 and 2018 have been breakout years for this editor. I would like to nominate them for some fantastic contributions to key articles such as Territorial Force, Yeomanry Cavalry and Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom (to name but a few) in 2018. Factotem has also mucked in on various reviews, to help others with their goals of improving content. Thanks for your efforts. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Dumelow: fairly consistently creates very interesting and detailed articles. See here Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion ("Military historian of the year")

Discussion has migrated south, where a proposal on renaming the award(s) is being hammered out. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to oppose Sturmvogel 66's nomination, on procedural and substantive grounds. On the former, I've previously expressed concern about the suitability of the "Military historian of the year" terminology, but perhaps I was not specific enough: Reminder: Military historian of the year 2018. To clarify, it sends the wrong message, IMO, for Milhist members to be positioning themselves as 'experts' and 'military historians'. On the latter, some of Sturmvogel's comments over the years have been concerning: In 2016, Sturmvogel participated in a coordinator-only thread where he shared his concerns about having had "encounters with the diehard anti-Nazis, to [his] chagrin". The discussion included the sentiment, apparently echoed by others, that alleged anti-Nazis were a "problem" and that "all coordinators [should] keep a weather eye out for this behaviour": Thread. Sturmvogel was the lead coordinator at the time, so this aberrant discussion happened on his watch, so to speak. More recently, during the German War Effort arbitration case, Sturmvogel defended a historical-revisionist publisher and discussed, in his own voice, "successful" murder of Jews. I had described the comments as "offensive and inappropriate", to which there was no acklowledgement nor a response. As a MILHIST member, I do not find that Sturmvogel's actions (or inactions) represent the best of the project, deserving the "historian" honour. I therefore must oppose. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Sturmvogel 66's comments are being taken out of context here. He specifically stated that Several years ago they published Globocnik’s Men in Italy, 1943-45: Abteilung R and the SS-Wachmannschaften of the Operationszone Adriatisches Küstenland, a history of Odilo Globocnik and his staff's activities in northeastern Italy after their successful murder of Polish Jews in Operation Reinhard. This is simply a factual statement that Globocnik was involved in the Holocaust, and Sturmvogel's usage of the term murder, which carries a connotation of illegality, indicates that he is not endorsing Globocnik's actions. Sturmvogel 66 should not be obligated to respond to such as blatant misinterpretation of his comments. Kges1901 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC) I evaluated the statement in context. Combining "successful" and "murder" in one's voice is offensive and inappropriate. If Sturmvogel had misspoken, the thing to do would have been to strike the offending comment, not ignore it. That said, we are still left with the matters of "Military historians"; "diehard anti-Nazis", and the "so what" comment in re: J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing. Actual historians deal with sensitive matters all the time; I do not see the same here. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC) I felt that there was little point in carrying on the conversation after you wilfully misunderstood my statement. Better to disengage than to carry on a pointless conversation. As for my comment about Fedorowicz, it is quite possible to extract useful factual information from non-NPOV sources, but you do not seem to agree and apparently wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater by trying to condemn a publisher's entire output without judging each book on its own merits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC) There are some talented, hard-working editors here, like Sturmvogel 66, who have for years now, volunteered countless hours of their time to write and maintain articles about military history. This is a subject that covers some of the ugliest events of human history, and as such, editors in this area are often obligated to research, write about and discuss some of these events, the details surrounding them and the people involved. And now we have user needlessly casting some very ugly aspersions at one these hard working editors. K.e.coffman, your comments are out of line. I suggest you strike them immediately and apologize to Sturmvogel 66. I would also suggest that an admin rev/del this entire section. This is sickening. - wolf 21:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC) No, let it stand. Coffman has done some very good work on eradicating slanted coverage on Nazi-related topics and is to be applauded for his efforts. That I think that he goes sometimes goes overboard is my opinion, as is his taking offense at my comment(s). And you know what they say about opinions... IMO, military historian of the year should be about quality, not just quantity or time invested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Well, you are clearly being the bigger person here. I don't know how this helps the next person he may attack, but I will defer to your judgement. At the very least, I would ask that K.e. get off this bent about the term "historian". It does not seem to be impressing anyone, nor accomplishing anything. The manner in which the term is being used here is not at all inappropriate. It has been apart of this this informal, moral and content boosting contest for (as near as I can tell) 10 years now, without causing any harm, nor improperly inferring that anyone deemed the winner has any professional recognition that they are not otherwise entitled to. - wolf 22:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC) @K.e.coffman: Could you please clarify your position? If you really are so against the use of the term "Military historian", then wouldn't you be opposing all nominations on procedural grounds, not just Sturmvogels's? That you may especially dislike the honor of "historian" being bestowed on this user in light of their comments seems to be purely substantive. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC) These sorts of attacks on other editors make editing in the field very much more unpleasant than it needs to be and are likely to discourage editors from contributing to the subject at all if they think that they will be subject to such abuse.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC) @Sturm: These are the baby, bathwater and chaff from the grain arguments: [2]. More examples at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#WWII articles Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#Wikipedians: "historians" or "editors"? @Indy beetle: The second link also covers my concerns over the "historians" terminology. As to whether I 'wilfully misunderstood' -- my reaction was informed by my prior encounters with anti-"anti-Nazi" editors (see thread, plus other such incidents). I also note that the pejorative "diehard anti-Nazis" has not been addressed; compare with "diehard anti-genocide". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC) @Wolf: there's nothing in this thread that's not been discussed / linked during WP:ARBGWE; it's not some unexpected, new evidence. I don't think that your request to rev-delete the entire case would go over well. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC) I never suggested rev/del'ing the "entire case", just the posts here in which you cast ugly aspersions against Sturmvogel 66, but as Sturmvogel has already graciously let you off the hook, it's a moot issue. So let it go. - wolf 03:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC) Frankly, this thread is poisonous, petty and unworthy sniping directed at an outstanding contributor to this project, and an attempt to re-litigate aspects of the GWE case where K.e.coffman did not get what they wanted. This appears to be a blatant attempt to undermine an important way in which we reward editors for their contributions to the project. By long-standing tradition and in the spirit of collegiality, this award is determined by a simple approval vote, so there is no scope for opposing a nomination. The option you have under simple approval voting is to not vote for Sturmvogel_66. I am going to close and archive this thread as outside of process and start another one to establish consensus on the name of the award. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC) In my view this thread should be closed by an uninvolved coord, given the issue of the naming of the award is now being addressed in a separate thread, and because this constitutes an oppose which is deprecated in what has traditionally only been a collegiate and supportive environment of simple approval voting for the awards. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC) @K.e.coffman: I understand your position on the terminology. What I want to know is if you oppose bestowing this title to anybody (not just Sturmvogel) unless it is altered to no longer say "historian?" -Indy beetle (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC) @K.e.coffman: has done an admirable job keeping nazi apologists of Wikipedia, I don't care too much if he's a little too hard on people from times, it's still 1000 times better than letting creeps slip through the fingers. If Vogel miss-spoke then he should apologize, learn better and go on. But the fact that he said "so what" to a "historian" not covering a subject objectively tells me he should not receive any awards. Working tirelessly does not make you a good editor, I know that from personal experience, I may work hour upon hours, but I sure as hell am not going to get any awards for being good.★Trekker (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC) @Treker: There are no unbiased historians, everyone is biased one way or another. Our job as historians is to filter through those biases to come to as close an approximation of what actually happened as we possibly can.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done below by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to nominee's sections. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All project members are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sturmvogel 66:

1. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Rosiestep (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
5. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
6. - wolf 06:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Lyndaship (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
9. CPA-5 (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild:

1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
4. 47thPennVols (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Constantine ✍ 10:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Catlemur (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
9. Dumelow (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
10. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
11. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
12. wolf 06:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
13. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
14. Zawed (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• MilHistBot:

1. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Cplakidas (formerly Constantine):

1. Indy beetle (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Lyndaship (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7:

1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
4. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
6. - wolf 06:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Kges1901:

1. Kges deserves recognition for quality articles in areas that haven't received enough attention and, as I think I've said elsewhere, his conduct during disagreements is exemplary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. GELongstreet (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Catlemur (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
5. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
6. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Zawed (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
9. CPA-5 (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Adamdaley:

1. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Dumelow (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• GELongstreet:

1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
2. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert:

1. Euryalus (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. 47thPennVols (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
4. GELongstreet (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
8. CPA-5 (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Djmaschek:

1. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• TomStar81:

1. Worthy of the accolade any year but like to recognise Tom for his colossal effort producing thoughtful op-eds plus timelines of events for the centenary of World War I in the Bugle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Zawed (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ian Rose and Nick-D:

1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Indy beetle (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Constantine ✍ 10:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Kierzek (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Parsecboy (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Indy beetle:

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Kierzek (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. GELongstreet (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Catlemur (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Zawed:

1. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Dumelow (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Factotem:

1. Factotem seems to have been everywhere, producing quality articles and delivering insightful reviews, including detailed source checks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Like Ian says, Factotem has been on point here and at WP:CGR for the last couple years. SpartaN (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Kierzek (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Dumelow:

1. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
2. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2018 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2018

• 
  First place
• 
  Runners up

As we approach the end of the year, it is time for us to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. In addition to the Military historian of the year, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months for the Military history newcomer of the year award. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will begin at 00:01 (GMT) on 2 December 2018 and last until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of 14 days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their simple approval vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Please nominate editors below this line, including links in the nomination statement to the most significant articles/lists/images editors have worked on since 1 January 2018. Please keep nomination statements short and concise; excluding links to the articles/list/images in question, the ideal nomination statement should be about 20 words. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalized. Thanks, and good luck! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format:

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~
• Catrìona: Catrìona has only been consistently working on articles that fall within the scope of the project in the last year or so, and their excellent series of Holocaust-related articles has really impressed me with thorough examination of sources and well-written articles, including several GAs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• 47thPennVols: 47thPennVols has helped bring improvements to the long-moribund American Civil War topic area with expansions of regimental articles and Medal of Honor recipients to B-class and GA. Kges1901 (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• Eddie891 Been around since 2016, but only became actively working on Milhist articles this year. Since then has produced some impressive work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Gog the Mild: Only became active this year and dozens of GAs and DYKs, A-class medal, and currently 2nd on MH Writer's Cup. Reidgreg (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• L293D: Only been on WP for a year, and already has had a hand in eight GAs on ships of various nations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Chetsford: Has been editing since mid-2017, but only really hit the military history space properly this year, and has four military GAs and one military FA, Helicopter 66, for which they received the Four Award. Also has dozens of DYK credits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nominations for this year's "Military History Newcomer of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided above. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~) to the nominee's section below. As the awards process is one of simple approval, opposes are deprecated.

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 29 December 2017.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Catrìona:

1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
6. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Kierzek (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
9. Catlemur (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
10. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
11. wolf 06:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
12. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
13. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
14. Chetsford (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
15. Not just for her articles but for solid source reviewing, which we can't have enough of. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• 47thPennVols:

1. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
4. GELongstreet (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Chetsford (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
7. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Eddie891:

1. 47thPennVols (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Dumelow (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild:

1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Arrived like a whirlwind with a host of useful articles and shows no sign of slowing down. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Gog the Mild writes very excellent articles, but my vote has more to do with the volume of reviewing they undertake (e.g. 67 GAN noms reviewed). Chetsford (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
8. GELongstreet (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
9. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
10. Catlemur (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
11. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
12. Reidgreg (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
13. Dumelow (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
14. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
15. wolf 06:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
16. Prolific publisher. Thorough researcher. Quick-witted writer of engaging, accurate content. Insightful, collegial, constructive editor. Definitely deserves both of this year's Milhist awards. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
17. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• L293D:

1. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. GELongstreet (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
5. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Chetsford:

1. YuriNikolai (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
2. Some very good articles in a variety of less prominent areas, which is always welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Dumelow (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
7. - wolf 06:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Zawed (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wehrmachtbericht cleanup

Per recent consensus, I've removed most of the mentions that are either unsourced or sourced only to the ''Wehrmachtbericht itself. A search brings up a number of secondary-sourced mentions. I could use some help from editors with access to the hard-copy sources to determine whether or not they meet the new sourcing requirements. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 21:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I would post on each article talk page, pinging whomever added the citation, so contributors can provide a quote from the secondary source so it can be verified it meets the standard. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think that posting on each Talk page is necessary for biographical pages, as the sources currently used for the Wehrmachtbericht (WB) mentions are either primary or questionable. For example, the search for "This achievement earned" wehrmachtbericht brings up articles where the mentions are cited to the "usual suspects": catalogues of Knight's Cross winners or Landser-pulp literature, such as Stockert, Ringlstetter, Schumann, Kaiser, etc. On 65th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), where an IP edit is edit warring to retain the mention, the source he's using is, as expected, unsuitable: Talk:65th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)#Wehrmachtbericht.

A centralised discussion here would be more streamlined, rather than splintering it to multiple Talk pages. In the case of Stockert, Ringlstetter, Weal, et al, I think that the mentions can be removed, as these are not reliable secondary sources under Proposal 2. I can look at the non-biographical articles individually, which are not that many: [3]. They typically discuss WB in general, rather than as an individual/unit honour, so this RfC would not be applicable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Here are a few sources to check:

• Johann Mickl:

• Richter, Heinz; Kobe, Gerd (1983). Bei den Gewehren—General Johann Mickl—Ein Soldatenschicksal [With the Guns—General Johann Mickl—A Soldiers Fate] (in German). Bad Radkersburg, Austria: Selbstverlag der Stadt Bad Radkersburg. ASIN B003DKFQUS  (12 September 2013). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• This one I can do, as I have a copy. This is about the first mention of Mickl's division in the WB. The passage in question is on p. 131 and reads, "Bei einem großen Unternehmen im Mai 1944, bei dem die Division mit der östwarts des Plješjevica-Gebirges zwischen Bihač und südlich Knin eingesetzte 373. kroatischen Infanteriedivision zusammen kämpfte, hatte Mickl so große Erfolge, daß die Division erstmals im Wehrmachtbericht erwähnt wurde." Through the magic of Google Translate combined with my schoolboy German and knowledge of the geography, this appears to me to read "In a large operation in May 1944, in which the division fought together with the 373rd Croatian Infantry Division, deployed east of the Plješjevica Mountains between Bihač and south of Knin, Mickl had such great success that the division was mentioned for the first time in the Wehrmachtbericht." Given the way this is worded, it seems clear to me that this mention in the WB is clearly framed as an honour for the success of the division in the operation in May 1944, and therefore meets the conditions of the consensus proposal regarding mentions in the WB. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Remove: the source does not meet WP:IRS / WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. For starters, it's published by Selbstverlag der Stadtgemeinde Bad Radkersburg, which stands for "Self-published by the municipality Bad Radkersburg". --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Retain: the source is an excellent book, detailed and consistent with other reliable sources on various aspects of Mickl's military service, and is used as a source for the Deutsche Biographie entry on Mickl. It is clear from the introduction and bibliography that the authors used material from the Austrian and German archives, as well as Mickl's personal papers and interviews with family and other people who knew him. Being published by a local government authority isn't the same as being self-published by the authors themselves (ie vanity publishing). Mickl is a significant figure in the history of Bad Radkersburg, which explains why they have published it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer

• Hinchliffe, Peter (1999). Schnaufer: Ace of Diamonds. Brimscombe Port, UK: Tempus. ISBN 978-0-7524-1690-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Helmut Lent

• Hinchliffe, Peter (1998). Luftkrieg bei Nacht 1939–1945 [Air War at Night 1939–1945] (in German). Stuttgart, Germany: Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 978-3-613-01861-7.

• Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz

• Röll, Hans-Joachim (2011). Generalleutnant der Reserve Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz: Vom Kavallerieoffizier zum Führer gepanzerter Verbände [Lieutenant General of the Reserve Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz: From a Cavalry Officer to a Leader of Armoured Units] (in German). Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig. ISBN 978-3-8035-0015-1.

• Hans-Joachim Marseille

• Berger, Florian (1999). Mit Eichenlaub und Schwertern. Die höchstdekorierten Soldaten des Zweiten Weltkrieges [With Oak Leaves and Swords. The Highest Decorated Soldiers of the Second World War] (in German). Vienna, Austria: Selbstverlag Florian Berger. ISBN 978-3-9501307-0-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Remove: another self-published source. Selbstverlag Florian Berger stands for "Self-published by Florian Berger". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Remove: self-published. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Joachim Müncheberg

• Schumann, Ralf; Westerwelle, Wolfgang (2010). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – Der Jäger von Malta [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – The Hunter of Malta] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 706989728. ASIN B003ZNZTGY  (18 May 2014). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Remove: UNITEC-Medienvertrieb is a publisher of Ritterkreuzträger booklets of dubious provenance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Retain: see my comment below. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hans Philipp

• Steinecke, Gerhard [in German] (2012). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 802538281. ASIN B008AIT9Z6  (4 January 2013). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Remove: UNITEC-Medienvertrieb is a publisher of Ritterkreuzträger booklets of dubious provenance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Retain: see my comment below. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
• Bergström, Christer; Mikhailov, Andrey (2000). Black Cross / Red Star Air War Over the Eastern Front, Volume I, Operation Barbarossa 1941. Pacifica, California: Pacifica Military History. ISBN 978-0-935553-48-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Bergstom makes no mention of the Wehrmachtberichte, only of the victories claimed that day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging MisterBee1966 who added most of these. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, for starters you'll need to explain why the authors you mention are not reliable. I don't recall Weal going to RSN at any stage, so I'd appreciate if you would link to these discussions before deleting them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that UNITEC-Medienvertrieb publishes "booklets of dubious provenance" as you claim, K.e.coffman? They appear to be a specialist military/technical publisher, akin to Osprey, producing books on subjects ranging from profiles of ships, vehicles and aircraft from WWII to modern, including books on aspects of the US Army in Germany, major Cold War exercises, the French Air Force etc. Worldcat lists some 175 or so titles, many held by German university libraries. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Even accepting the premise that UNITEC publishes "booklets of dubious provenance", the idea that everything a publisher publishes is unusable because some of the books it publishes are questionable is a fundamental syllogistic fallacy. One wonders where the alleged Nazi sympathies might be found in Japanische Flugzeutrager or Kettenfahrzeug der US Army might be found, for example. I'd echo Peacemaker's assessment that they appear to be similar to the Osprey series. Are they produced by academic historians? I would assume no. But that does not mean they're unusable.

I would ask that if K.e. wants to discredit a specific source, it would be helpful if he (or someone else) has actually seen the book (or at least a review of it). Or we'll end up with a situation like this one, where a seemingly well-intentioned editor is admittedly going around deleting external links he hasn't even looked at, on the basis that they violate WP:ELNO. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

A UNITEC source was discussed here; although one editor questioned the wisdom of discrediting the publisher's entire body of work, there was agreement that theKnight's Cross Profiles series is not a reliable academic source. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That discussion, despite being about WWII sources, wasn't even advertised here, where the vast majority of WWII military editors discuss things. Very few regular Milhist editors were pinged. And very few editors were even involved in the discussion, and not all agreed. So it is hardly conclusive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That it was or wasn't advertised here isn't all that relevant - the point is, K.e. sought to discredit an entire publisher based on a single book he hasn't even read, just relying on his assumptions from the title of the book. Which is, frankly, a joke of an idea. He then conflated them with Kurowski (for which he provided exactly zero evidence apart from, I kid you not, a description of the book on e-Bay. You know, where you get all of your book reviews). At what point do we start ignoring this garbage?

Oh, and in that discussion, no one agreed with his point specifically relating to UNITEC - Woogie agreed that we should not be using "Landser-Hefte" type sources, but he did not, as far as I understand the English language, agree that UNITEC is an example of such. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there wasn't consensus in that discussion to discount UNITEC entirely, but we are talking about the Knight's Cross Profiles specifically and there was strong agreement that they are an example of non-academic fringe literature. –dlthewave ☎ 22:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same thread? As far as I can tell, only K.e. commented on the Ritterkreuz profiles. Parsecboy (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

What else may Woogie have been referring to, and why would they mention it in that thread if it was not Ritterkreuz profiles? –dlthewave ☎ 23:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Aircorn, K.e.coffman, Sturmvogel 66 and Woogie10w who participated in that discussion. Perhaps they can clarify their positions regarding Ritterkreuz. –dlthewave ☎ 05:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ritterkreuzträger Profiles are fringe sources, I would not use them. BTW I am an American,English is my mother tongue. --Woogie 10w (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Responding to ping. I don't really have an opinion regarding that validity of the source. My involvement was more focused on the WP:GA status of the articles. I was going through old GAs with tags and trying to resolve the issues or delist them. I am easy whatever way this discussion decides. If it is decided that they are reliable then can the tags be removed from Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot) and Rudolf Frank. If they are not can someone delist them or ping me so I can do the delisting. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment on RfC and reliable sources

• General comment on the RfC and reliable sources. Anticipating the situation that we now find ourselves in, I requested sample reliable sources during the RfC. I commented that, based on my reading and editing Wiki pages of highly-decorated WWII German personnel, Wehrmachtbericht mentions were to be found in apologist, revisionist, National Socialist, phaleristics, militaria, and / or Landser-pulp literature, with some of it issued by right-wing and extremist publishers. I suggested that it was reasonable to request to see these reliable sources, to make sure they exist. I even wrote that Peacemaker67 was apparently not aware of such sources either.

There was no response to this, indicating a tacit agreement (?), so I did not pursue the matter further: [4]. However, it turns out that Peacemaker67 is in possession of a source that he now claims to be suitable for the Wehrmachtbericht mention, despite a request for such while the RfC was still open. Similar sources have been extensively discussed, see for example: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joachim Helbig/1, in multiple parts. More specifically, UNITEC-Medienvertrieb has also been discussed: RSN:Sources in World War II GA articles. The continued advocacy, based on one editor's say-so, is concerning.

The current demands ([5], [6], Talk:Friedrich Geisshardt#Wehrmachtbericht, & above) strike me as being out-of-process because supporters of proposal #2 might have voted differently when presented with questionable literature such as this. One voter, for example, mentioned WP:HISTRS needing to be satisfied, before considering inclusion. I thus suggest that all Wehrmachtbericht mentions, in re: being an honour for specific personnel, be removed and their proponents be invited to make a case for individual sources at WP:RSN, to make sure we can establish WP:WEIGHT for such mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This is just a transparent attempt to subvert the RfC which didn't go the way K.e.coffman wanted. The community had a chance to form a consensus view, and did. Just drop the stick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: If you're that concerned about this new information, then you could ping all of the people who voted for option #2 to see if this really does change their view. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It was indeed predictable, that some editors would try to use proposal #2 as a kind of backdoor to push Nazi propaganda, i.e. the Wehrmachtbericht. I may offer some remarks concerning the sources which are advertised as “excellent” and “reliable” here. The book by Richter/Kobe is strongly biased. As the back cover reads: “The synthesis of soldier and human has it that in this man the eternally the same values of upright soldiering are embodied, which are honesty, bravery and courage, respect for the opponent and caring for the soldier. Besides, Johann Mickl stood out for his high level of humanity, which characterized him apart from his love of his homeland and his personal modesty.” (If it reads confusing in English, I might note that it is also poorly written in German.) The article Johann Mickl strongly relies on Richter/Kobe and consequently reads hagiographic. The pp. 93-139, i.e. Mickl’s bio from 1938 to 1945, have been written by Gerd Kobe, who was Mickl’s chief of operations on the Balkans. I would not call a veteran an unbiased, reliable source. The Report on the crimes of Austria and the Austrians against Yugoslavia and her peoples (1947) charges Mickl’s 392nd division with war crimes, but as we learn, based upon Richter/Kobe, it became clear to the members of the division that a fratricidal war had been raging between Croats and Serbs, and the division would only find burned houses and dead and wounded Serb civilian, in other words, some Croats did it, so Mickl not only shouted at them, but “protected” the Serbs from them. That article is a true showcase of apologia and heroication with many stunning quotes mainly sourced to Richter/Kobe. The context of the first “mention in the Wehrmachtbericht” is telling, hosever, because it is indeed clearly framed as an honour for the success of the division in the operation in May 1944 which left, according to German sources, 438 partisans killed. Recent historiography has shown that the Germans counted civilian victims as partisans. Schraml’s work is considered outdated and publisher Kurt Vowinckel is well known for his extreme rightwing political outlook.

UNITEC is Manfred Franzke’s imprint and as obscure as it can get. It is that kind of literature that you’ll find in a certain corner of a railway station bookshop. No journal with some reputation will commission a review of such a publication. That’s embarrassing. Manfred Franzke, apparently a former fighter pilot, ran for the German Bundestag in 2009 for the obscure Willi-Weise-Projekt. Now he is with the AfD.----Assayer (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a more substantive line of argument on the UNITEC books - the one question I'd ask (being non-German and knowing very little about German politics) is, just how fringe is Franzke? While there are certainly extremist elements in AfD, do we know that he's one of them? I'd also be curious about the politics of the people writing the books - do they tend to have a reputation as apologists and such? I will grant you that the covers look pretty cringey, but that may not be reflective of their contents.

I'd agree that the Richter/Kobe book looks to be unusable. Parsecboy (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Franzke's political affiliations provide the context for these publications. More important, however, is the apparent lack of editorial oversight. These publications are addressed to people who are interested in (military) aviation and model building. They are heavily illustrated with photographs of personalities, aircraft, and award documents and closer to a magazine than to a book, let alone a study. Many “profiles” have been written by Ralf Schumann, about whom virtually nothing is known (profession, training), except that he publishes quite a lot about Knight’s Cross recipients, for example with VDM Heinz Nickel. It seems as if some of the profiles have been translated and published by Schiffer publishing as ‘’Knight’s Cross Profiles’’ (2 vols so far). So basically, the question is again: Are those sources considered to be RS? Larger articles about Knight’s Cross recipients are almost always based upon these kinds of sources. In fact, it would be impossible to write lengthy articles if there wasn’t a sizable amount of that literature, which I consider to be fringe, while others maintain that it is valuable, trustworthy and invaluable for certain information. Proposal #2 is thus used to merely carry on by declaring questionable publications to be RS. I raised that question during the previous discussion [7], but it was evaded.

Richter/Kobe is different. A study on forced laborers from Yugoslavia in Austria (Anna Maria Grünfelder, Arbeitseinsatz für die Neuordnung Europas, 2010) noted, that so far there is no military history of Operation Morgenstern and Operation Schach of May 1944 (p. 133). Thus it is virtually impossible to provide a critical assessment. If I were to write about it, I would nevertheless mention the Wehrmachtbericht, but try to provide context concerning the German fight against Yugoslav partisans. The way Richter/Kobe frame it, and the way in which their book is uncritically used to inform the Wikipedia article, are highly questionable, though.--Assayer (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've opened an RfC regarding the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series here. –dlthewave ☎ 17:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• At Indy beetle's suggestion, I'm pinging Nick-D, Lyndaship, Auntieruth55, Icewhiz, Thewolfchild, Dapi89, Catrìona who participated in the RfC. The sampling of sources is offered at #Wehrmachtbericht cleanup and the follow-up discussion is in this section: #Comment on RfC and reliable sources. I believe that Assayer offers insightful feedback on "Richter, Heinz; Kobe, Gerd (1983). Bei den Gewehren—General Johann Mickl—Ein Soldatenschicksal" and "Ritterkreuzträger Profiles" from UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Navy Justice

Navy Justice is currently a fiction article. I would expect a hatnote to articles concerning actual naval justice, but there's none right now. Is there such an article that could be linked to from a hatnote? -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done - wolf 16:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Would there be something more, or a list? Just the USN seems lopsided (though better than nothing) -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

But the series is about the USN JAG Corps, right? What else did you have in mind? - wolf 19:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The series is about the USN, but the term "Naval Justice" doesn't present itself as a term that is solely the preserve of the United States (and there's a mil-sf novel series that the publisher calls "JAG in Space"). Certainly captains masts and the skippers' word being law is naval justice (though perhaps more maritime law in general) and isn't solely American, nor the existence of shore patrol or naval provosts. A portal or outline of naval justice would do the trick. Or a list of USN JAG and its equivalents in other navies would be good. Indeed one of the first things that comes to mind when thinking "navy justice" is the courtmartial of a particular fifth-lieutenant for dereliction of duty when all the superior officers were killed when the bridge was hit... and that isn't USN. So the workings of navy justice in general and in other navies would ideally be somehow linkable. -- 67.70.34.69 (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

See Military justice there are links from there. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hatnotes are generally for linking to actual articles with similar titles, and not so much for possible topics. We don't link hatnotes to phantom articles. Navy justice, Naval justice, and Naval Justice have no redirects anywhere else, much less articles connected with them. Perhaps something needs sorting out, but add a hatnote after that's been done, not before. - BilCat (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP asked for a hatnote to a real world equivalent to this article about a series of fictional novels that appear to be about a US Navy JAG officer, and so there is now a hatnote that distinguishes between that and the actual Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy. I'm not familiar with the series, but unless it is about other national navies, then why would there be any more or different hatnotes? Not sure I can help you any further, as it is not clear what is wanted and what can be done about it. - wolf 16:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked this to a link to Military justice, which provides somewhat broader coverage. It's fair to say that Wikipedia's coverage of military justice topics is greatly under-developed. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Paddy Ashdown's military awards

I've moved two uncited military awards from the article to Talk:Paddy Ashdown#Military awards as I can't immediately verify them: Naval General Service Medal and General Service Medal. I suspect though that they will be fairly easy to verify (or conclusively not verify) by someone who knows where to look. I'd appreciate it if someone can either do that checking or point me at where to search. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not the sort of medals that would normally get mentioned, they are not particularly noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they are British campaign medals, awarded to everyone who was in that theatre of operations during the conflict. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

They may be noteworthy to have stand-alone articles on them but as far as individual biographical articles are concerned we would not even mention them. Over 100,000 were awarded for Northern Ireland. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Because the British Empire fought so many wars it was considered unwarranted to create a special medal for each one. So they created the General Service Medal, and you get a clasp for each significant war or campaign. Some people racked up a dozen. While the medals are common, some of the clasps are very rare. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

To all our gnomes, geeks, and other wikifolk of the Military History Project!! Pleasure again working alongside you this year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Merry Christmas everyone! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

David Gwynne-James

Hi all. Happy xmas. Just over from the Cricket WikiProject with a heads up that I've created the above chap, but his background as a military historian and army man seems far more significant than his one first-class cricket match. So posting it here if anyone fancies expanding that side of his life. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello again StickyWicket, thanks for the heads up. I've taken a stab at expanding it from the London Gazette and a college obituary. I'll see if there's anything more I can find (particularly relating to his military history writings) - Dumelow (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Think I've got as far as I can with this one now - Dumelow (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

United States military pay

someone alerted me on the fact that at the section "Historic pay raise chart" the "pay gap"-info hasn't been updated since 2010. Perhaps someone has newer information which he/she can add? Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Source was updated, so I've updated the article, also added a graph. (Hohum ^@) 18:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)