Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WEAPON)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
review
Contest Awards Members

Suspect edits?[edit]

Hi all,

A new user, MatiasGerlich, has made a string of edits regarding casualty figures on several articles. Some of his edits have been reverted, but some remain (including partial reverts) on the below articles. No idea if his edits are worth keeping:

RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages[edit]

I have unfortunately been engaged in edit wars on the Infoboxes of various Vietnam War battle pages with a User who is adding "US claims" or "US reports" or the wikilink to Body count#Vietnam War before the figures for North Vietnamese/Vietcong casualties. I am fine with any one of US report/claim/source/body count being added, showing that this is the US account of North Vietnamese/Vietcong casualties and I believe that this is in line with other battle pages, particularly those where casualties are contested. However this User has in various case inserted the formulation "US Claims: X killed (body count)" or even "US Source: X killed (body count claim)" which to me is like saying "US claim claim claim" and I believe that is POV designed to (further) undermine the credibility of US claims of North Vietnamese/Vietcong losses which are already discussed in detail at Body count. Can you please advise below if you support or oppose the use of only one of report, claim, source or body count on all Vietnam War battle pages. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

In war both sides exaggerate or underestimate. But I think after this time most scholarly sources will be fairly OK. But no source is going top be exact. So without seeing the actual edit and what he said (or whether his choice of words was wrong).Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven no argument about accuracy of the figures, the RfC is simply whether or not Infoboxes should just say "US claims: x killed" or if "US claims: x killed (body count)" or even "US Source: X killed (body count claim)" is acceptable. You can look on pretty much any battle page with US involvement to see the edit warring. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I did look at one, and I could not see what you are claiming was said. But there are a loot of edits (by the pair of you) to wade through. So maybe I missed it, so proved a dif.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not possible for other editors to consider this issue in the abstract, as is being requested here. In what articles is this issue occurring, what are the views of the other editor, where have previous discussions been, etc? Asking for feedback based purely on your view of things is a miss-use of the RfC process. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This has already been discussed by myself and an admin, that US sources for "enemy KIA" are generally unreliable. Mztourist has been engaging in an attempted revision/censorship, and has constantly reverted my edits on this topic. He has also reported me no less than three times, two of them already dismissed. The fact is that US 'body count' claims are without a doubt unreliable given the serious history behind body count discussions. Furthtermore MZTOURIST is trying to inject POV by basically stating not only "bodycounts" are accurate, but they are under-reported, using vague authorship and bad scholarship (Mark Woodruff, AP articles). Below are a few decisions made on the issue by another user. MZTOURIST attempting to remove/censor parts concerning lack of distinction between civilian and combatant casualties for US casualties reporting. MZTOURIST reverting/censorsing discussion on civilian KIA conflation. [1]. Decision made on the unreliable bodycount figures. [2]. A bicyclette (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven and Nick-D diffs here: [3], [4], [5] and [6] but similar edits are being made on pretty much every Vietnam War battle page. A bicyclette has provided his comments above. I am seeking a consensus on this issue, which to my understanding is the entire point of RFC. Mztourist (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"Rfc" is a term that has a precise meaning on WP; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. This talk page section is not an rfc. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Fixed, thank you. Mztourist (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Body count figures are well-known to have been horrendously manipulated by ARVN and US forces for a variety of reasons, I don't see any problem with identifying them as US claims, with a link to the body count article that explains the very problematic nature of ARVN/US casualty claims. Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggest this RfC be withdrawn and the guideline on RfC statement neutrality and brevity be consulted before re-opening. Something along the lines of "How should Vietnam War casualty figures be presented" might do the trick. It seems to me that there are actually two issues, the first dealing with how the casualty figures are handled generally, given that contemporary figures are so unreliable, the second dealing with how this is then presented in the infobox, which is not the place for nuance. Factotem (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree that the RfC is malformed and should be redrafted according to policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the RFC tag and opened a new discussion below which I hope everyone above will contribute to. Mztourist (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Managing Campaignbox Bloat[edit]

There seems to be little in the way of managing the enormous operations bloat that is occurring for this campaign box located at Template:Campaignbox_Vietnam_War. Some operations are relatively minor and obscure, and many follow typically the same pattern of time, date with scant detail from the same set of 1 or 2 sources (typically books summarizing AAR reports for MACV). There are a few operations of placing these "operations" or battles into more managable articles, such as the articles on Con Thien or contextualizing operations behind major battles such as the Battle of Dak To. Another example includes Operation Thayer which summarizes three operations in a geographic area.

For the 1965-1966 period a few examples are here. Most follow a very specific pattern of Date, brief descript of event, casualties -> next date repeat and with many of them occurring over months. The significance of them isn't really all that discussed here so we don't get a sense of importance or impact from them other than X was killed and Y was killed. Here are the examples: Operation Marauder, Operation New York,Operation Cocoa Beach, Operation Lincoln (Vietnam), Operation Oregon, Operation Texas (Vietnam), Operation Birmingham, and Operation Silver City, Operation Jay, Operation Austin IV Operation El Paso, Operation Wahiawa Operation Nathan Hale,Operation John Paul Jones, Operation Macon, Operation Seward, Operation Colorado, Operation Amarillo, Operation Byrd Operation Sunset Beach, Operation Geronimo (Vietnam), Operation Shenandoah

At the same timeframe there are aticles which have more than just a summary of events over a time period, and include more sources and details than 1 or 2 operation summary books, include among them Operation Starlite, Operation Hump, Battle of Xa Cam My, Battle of Hill 488or single battles which had significance such as the Battle of Minh Thanh Road

A bicyclette (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Keeping the articles with substantive details which are relatively minor may be useful, but this campaign box only represents a fraction of all battles and operations in the war. Thoughts? A bicyclette (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As an initial suggestion, how about a campaign box for the bottom of articles? Being page-width, it should at least look more reasonable to the reader. The right-hand box could then be distilled down to the major phases of the war, and perhaps the operations that are already in bold. In terms of implementation, it may be most fruitful to trim down {{Campaignbox Vietnam War}}, create a new template for the operations box (e.g. {{Operations of the Vietnam War}}, and then run a script to add the new one at the bottom of the articles. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I've also just re-read your suggestion, and you make a good point about many of the operations likely being too small or lacking in detail to ever expect enough material for an extensive article. What would you recommend as the item around which they are consolidated? Geographical location? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 12:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey Sasuke Sarutobi, thanks for the suggestion but I wouldn't be sure how to implement it truthfully. I've already started grouping some things by major geographic location and year. I think there's a few parallel parts to group it by, but grouping by geographical location and distinct phases might be useful. E.g. there's a component that's grouped at the DMZ area, there's a component that's grouped just be the Tet Offensive and so-on. There's a few key areas and a few key timephases throughout the conflict as a whole. I'd like to hear other user inputs on this matter. A bicyclette (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, the campaign box only lists significant battles and operations of a long war and it is already segregated timewise. Being one of the major creators of Vietnam war battle pages and also one of the major contributors to the campaign box, I do not envisage that it will expand significantly as I believe that most of the major battles and operations are covered with the possible exception of the 1968-71 period. All Allied operations of the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1975 are listed on the List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1964) and subsequent pages, but nothing important happened on the majority of them so they don't warrant their own pages or inclusion in the Campaign box. If anyone has specific examples of pages that should be condensed/consolidated that needs to be raised on the relevant page(s), not discussed in the abstract here. Mztourist (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Most of the major operations are not covered however, the only operations which are covered are primarily US ones, with one or two sources used (official histories). These cannot be regarded as the "primary" operations only, given the significant lack of sources used by yourself. This also does not cover major battles beyond just US military operations, in a war primarily characterized by minor "skirmishes". A bicyclette (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to write pages about other significant operations based on WP:RS.Mztourist (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the point is that there are a significant number of operations yet to be added to an already-large template, given its position on the right of the article (a point I certainly agree with). I stand by my recommendation that such an extensive list template belongs at the bottom of articles, but A bicyclette has validly pointed out that this would still only be a part of the solution, as it would not address the wider quality problem of having a large number of short and under-sourced articles (to say nothing of the reader experience of having to navigate such a large number of articles). — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 09:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Yup, there's way too many independent and minor operations which really only list date, casualties, minor details here and there for many operations, and not even forgetting they are relatively "minor". They are organized by time-frame instead of geographical locations as well. I'd suggest condensing major ones into blocs the same way Con Thien/Masher/and Thayer,Irving,Thayer II is organized but placing minor ones at the bottom. A bicyclette (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@A bicyclette: What is your neutral and brief question? Remember that what appears at WP:RFC/HIST is copied from the {{rfc}} template down to the next timestamp. In this lot I can't work out what we are being asked to comment on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC: How should Vietnam War casualty figures be presented?[edit]

How should Vietnam War casualty figures be presented in Infoboxes and body of pages? In many cases the casualty figures for all combatants are based only on US sources so how should this be presented in a neutral way? Mztourist (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • If only the US figures are presented in reliable independent sources then we use those as the figures stated as fact, as the sources do. Wikipedia reflects the world as independent sources say it to be, not what you "know". Guy (Help!) 08:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If the only figures available are regarded by WP:RS to be unreliable then the presentation of them in the main body of the article should, I believe, be accompanied by a discussion of their unreliability. In these cases I would suggest that, rather than trying to accommodate complexity in an infobox that is not designed to handle it, we do not include casualty figures, but instead link to the section in the article that discusses them. If there are differing figures from partisan sources, we might consider representing this as a range, accompanied by a link to the section in the article that discusses them. See Battle of Ia Drang for an example. User:A bicyclette has a valid point in insisting on flagging the unreliability of the figures where this has been recognised in the sources, but we should not be trying to handle this in the infobox. Perhaps we could come up with some boilerplate text that can be added to the main body of the relevant articles which explains the issues? Factotem (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I would be reluctant to adopt the range as it can become meaningless, see for example Operation Junction City where the US lost 282 killed, while the PAVN/VC claim 13,500 US/ARVN killed. I just don't see how a range of 282-13,500 is informative.Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In the case of Junction City the PAVN claim should be attributed as propaganda, given that that would be half of the forces in the operation, and 800 armored vehicles presumes a loss of almost all the US vehicles involved. This is a similar situation to crediting a Japanese casualty claim for Leyte Gulf (at least in this specific case). I looked at the source mentioned and [7] Woodruff (author) states that the PAVN claim for Junction City is "far fetched", and quotes the US claim of their own casualties without attribution. How can we place this PAVN figure on par with the US' own casualty reports if WP:RS do not describe it as reliable? Kges1901 (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest using "See Casualties section" in the infobox, and creating a stand-alone Casualties section in each article to discuss the various figures and the issues there are with them. Some standard wording about the inaccuracies inherent in US body counts and Vietnamese government sources etc can then be used in this section of each article to cover these issues. A similar arrangement is sometimes used with the Aftermath field in the infobox. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Factotem and Peacemaker. US military enemy casualty estimates from the Vietnam War are famously unreliable, and the post-War Vietnamese accounts are often also dubious. But that doesn't mean they're unusable. For instance, the Australian official history of the war makes regular use of Vietnamese official histories and accounts as part of its efforts to cover 'the other side of the hill', but comments on when they're dubious. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with a separate casualties section and discussion on each battle page because that would create an excessive emphasis on the issue making it POV. The wikilink to Body count#Vietnam War where the issue is discussed at length should be more than adequate. Where there are competing claims both should be stated as in Battle of Chosin Reservoir. Mztourist (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I fail to see how it would be POV. Whose POV would it be? If the casualty figures are notoriously inaccurate, then explaining that is taking a NPOV. Casualties are a pretty integral part of any battle, and should be covered, along with the limitations of the available figures. An alternative approach would be using a standard note, but given the ranges used as an example, a separate section seems the go. Even included in an Aftermath section if you don’t want a separate Casualties one. With Yugoslav Partisan/German battles, where overestimates of enemy casualties were also common, often it is best to use each party’s own figures for themselves where available, which are often more accurate than estimates of enemy casualties, treating the latter as claims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Concur with Nick, Peacemaker, and Factotem - we do the best we can with the sources that we have. US/ARVN figures for VC/PAVN casualties were notoriously manipulated on a wide scale - they should be treated with about as much trust as VC/PAVN figures for US/ARVN casualties (i.e., very little). Provide the numbers, explicitly denote them as claims, and use a boilerplate explanation of how (and why) body counts were inflated on a wide scale. As for the infobox, it would probably be best to just say "See casualty section". Infoboxes are not the place for nuance. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a common viewpoint/POV here that US body count figures are completely unreliable. I would like to draw your attention to Body count and Vietnam War casualties and do some simple maths. The US DOD claims 950,765 communist forces killed in Vietnam from 1965 to 1974 (it is stated but unreffed that DOD believes that these figures should probably be discounted by 30%). A "Vietnamese Government" document claims 849,000 military deaths between 1955 to 1975 (obviously this is a slightly different period - the years 1955-1964 saw fighting but not huge casualties while the years 1974-5 saw substantial fighting and casualties, but its unclear if this document includes the 300-330,000 PAVN/VC missing), but even if we discount the Vietnamese figure to 800,000 for the mismatched years that's only an 18% overestimate. If we add 300,000 missing then Vietnamese losses are 1.1m, so US figures underestimated by at least 15%. Rummel gives a mid-estimate of 1,062,000 and a high estimate of 1,489,000, so using those figures the US underestimated by 11% to 56%. We have all read stories about body count inflation etc. but the overall numbers simply don't support claims of complete unreliability. I propose that we adopt the approach used in Battle of Chosin Reservoir but instead of "US sources" we have "US body count" regards Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • They aren't completely unreliable, but they have severe, well-acknowledged weaknesses, which need to be acknowledged in the body of each article to allow readers to reach their own conclusions. As I've explained before, talking about total casualty estimates for 1965-75 or 1955-75 and using those to argue for or against the reliability of individual period casualty estimates after each combat ground engagement isn't linking apples to apples, because the total casualty estimates include many, many instances where ground forces did not face each other, mostly air raids, and because the total casualty estimates are based not on a count-up of body counts, in most cases, but instead on a variety of different estimates which can stray to the lengths of missing demographic cohort counting!! This is why Peacemaker and Nick-D are very much on the right track; a separate casualties section enables acknowledgement and discussion of the various source weaknesses and addition directly of any new data that arises from this point, with a description of how the new estimate came about. Very much endorse a separate casualties section. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Body count described the physical counting of bodies and estimates of PAVN/VC killed, in all engagements including standoff ones (air and artillery strikes) when sending in troops to physically count bodies was usually unfeasible. If they were routinely inflated as some Users here seem to think then the aggregate would always vastly overestimate actual losses, but the overall figures simply don't support that. Where there is WP:RS of body count inflation in a particular battle that should be noted on the page, but including a casualties section on every page discussing the deficiencies of body counts generally pushes a POV of body count unreliability. The whole issue should be centralized on 1 page Body count#Vietnam War where the different accounts and arguments can be laid out in detail and any new data added which will then apply across all pages that wikilink to it. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
        • There's a vast literature, including biographies of people who were involved, which notes that the wartime US body count figures were routinely falsified. As such, those for individual battles need to be treated with great care. Are the Vietnamese official total figures considered accurate by scholars? (it would have been in the regime's interest to minimise its losses). Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
          • To my knowledge the literature on body count is largely individual's experiences and contemporary media reports and none use the actual casualty figures (to the extent those can ever be accurately determined and agreed). Again to my knowledge no reliable book or academic paper has ever been produced that analyses the issue in depth, either in relation to individual battles or the war as a whole using the actual casualty figures. The "Vietnamese Government" document is being discussed at WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties, I agree that it was (and still is) in the Vietnamese Government's interest to try to minimize its losses.Mztourist (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
            • We already discussed this topic on reliable sources [8] here, and in many other places including here [9]. I'll just repost what I posted. Just going to further comment that MZTOURIST is attempting to discredit this source, even though I updated and provided more links, and explained it already. These are not public relations figures, and were sourced from Hanoi's internal military records in relation to a law/decree whereby the remains of the military dead from 1945-1990 are to be identified and recovered. MZTOURIST just believes EVERY SINGLE VIETNAMESE SOURCE is inherently a propaganda piece while not even questioning the straight-up proven propaganda of many US sources on the reliability of US-estimated casualties. Not operating with this a monolithic generalizations either, such as claiming "its the regime's interest to minimize losses" based on nothing is meaningless. They have often appeared to overstate casualties in contrast to demographic/true third-party studies as a counterexample(e.g. claiming 3 million dead in contrast to demographic studies here). [10]
            • The figures that are cited and established were meant for internal usage, not meant for "public relations" or whatever as MZTOURIST continues to believe. The figures from the document, found here [11], specifically here [12], were meant for an internal law searching for war dead from the periods 1945 to 1990. The breakdown is based on which component and sector, and the numbers are generally reliable given that these are compiled from internal sources and official record-keeping from the government of Vietnam. These are far more reliable than third-hand knowledge citing or speculating about what a vietnamese newspaper said as per the AP article. A bicyclette (talk)
  • My 2 cents (and generally true regarding any conflict) - if we have reliable estimates by historians (looking at both sides, usually 20-30+ years later) - that's preferred. If all we have are claims by either or both sides - we should state such claims, and clearly attribute them. Such claims are known to vary widely with reality (not only in Vietnam - this is pervasive in war - commanders will almost always overestimate their effectiveness - often by a large multiple) - however they are better than nothing.Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

US WWI stuff[edit]

Archive sheet with photo of the tank "America".

Hi everybody, 42.830 photos from the National Archive have been uploaded to WP:Commos in September 2017. Almost exclusively WW1 material. But not many people seem to have noticed. Since that material is effectively non-existent for wikipedia-work, as long as it has not been categorized - help is needed. I worked through all the files one time, and I think I got most of the material dealing with US army generals, but my computer failed from time to time because it couldn’t take the huge files any more, so I have to assume I missed a lot.

The National Archive people didn’t seem to have censored much - so you will see US casualties, all types of medical exams and treatments, plane accidents on US training fields, pictures of food items, firearms, uniforms, gasmasks, trucks and of almost everything else, acquired by the armed forces. So if you are not scared by an occasional very graphic display of an STD-treatment - help is needed! Alexpl (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I just noted that most of the material at the link given I looked at is from World War II and dated as such. For some reason it's all titled as "World War I Branch - ca. 1918 - ca. 1948". Just thought I'd let people know. RobDuch (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
If you click though the pages of that gallery I linked, you will notice that it is just a few WWII images at the beginnig and the very end of the collection. The last 500 images include images of the US-spanish war, indian wars, vietnam war and WW II. I have no idea what happend there, but some 95% are WWI. Alexpl (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
One of the oddities I found in that archive - The "America" tank. Apparently presented in the US in 1918 for promotional purposes, but I couldnt find anything about it on wikipedia. Alexpl (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It was the prototype of the Steam tank (which never made it into production/service) - Dumelow (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I've stuck the image into the "c:category:Steam-powered US experimental tank" and removed the unidentified tag from it - Dumelow (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
BTW, the tank called "Britannia" mentioned in the text was a British Mk IV Female sent over to the US to show the flag; it was later renamed "Liberty" and is still there. Alansplodge (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
one of many "exotic" trucks.
There are a lot of truck photos in that collection. So US WWI trucks/truckmaker-experts on Wikipedia - I bookmarked a few images which still need to get categorized: Alexpl (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]
[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]
[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]
[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]
[63][64][65][66][67][68][69]
What are the guidelines? For example the men in c:File:111-SC-10265 - Night shift ready for work, Bassens Docks, Bordeaux, France. - NARA - 55180863.jpg are almost certainly assigned to a stevedore regiment or battalion but is that WP:OR?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
NPOV and OR are not a must - see c:Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not Wikipedia. As long as you do not change the information which have been provided by the original uploader, you can add categories (c:Commons:Categories) and also explanatory text to the "General notes" section of a file, with a list of the reasons/sources for your assumption. Or use the discussion page of the file. Alexpl (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

New category: Category:Military draisines[edit]

Still needs mirroring on Commons, which has a very good draisine category tree, except no military tree. A bunch of vehicles missing as far as English wiki vehicle stubs, see linked categories (ex. Polish). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Daniel A. Dailey and similar articles[edit]

A recent AfD deleted an article about the Canadian Army Sgt Major, Alain Guimond. The argument was that he failed GNG as there was only primary sources ie military pages with mentions of him. This argument then should mean that we can delete Daniel A. Dailey and similar articles. Dailey's page has a number of primary sources, including an interview at McCalls. A google search will show that the majority of information from him is gleaned from .mil sites. Most news articles are passing mentions like he visited Fort Drum. If we accept that Canadian army pages are primary sources we can apply this to all the .mil sites surely? Then Dailey would also fail GNG and should be deleted. The AfD also rejected the argument that Guimond merited a page due to his post as Army Sgt Major. Your thoughts? Gbawden (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought his claim to be noteworthy was that he was Sergeant Major of the Army but I would vote for deletion just get rid of the awful medalfest, not sure who thought that was a good idea.. MilborneOne (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Someone went on a rampage adding these medalfests (great name for it) to a large number of military bios a few years back. I argued against it at the time. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I would say yes, if military pages do not establish notability it is the same irrespective of the service or nation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed on the delete; I would also posit that there are quite a few others that should be deleted/merged on that basis Graeme Spark being one. Quite of a few of the CASWOs are similarly fed by primary sources. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't really have an opinion either way on keeping or deleting these articles based on sourcing (though as mentioned above, SMA seems noteworthy) But as for these so-called "medelfests" (lists of decorations)... I didn't add them, but I don't see the problem with them. Why are some you so opposed to them? Does this apply to all military bio's? Are you looking for them to be removed outright? Or just added another way? Just curious... - theWOLFchild 13:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I´d say that while similarites between articles and their situations can and should be discussed it doesn't mean that an article should be deleted saying that another AfD from another article is reason enough. New article, new AfD case. And by the way the aforementioned short AfD for Alain Guimond is right over here. As far as the medals are concerned I suppose there simply are better and less bulky display options available to be used, like e.g. in this article. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with GEL, different bio, different AfD, and in fact when I come across mil bio's with a list of medals, I usually convert the list to a ribbon board and medal table, like here - theWOLFchild 14:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I find the Ribbon Board a ghastly apparation but luckly they seem to be confined to American articles, main objection is they seem to attract listing what are not really noteworthy awards that otherwise would not get mentioned in a list. Perhaps we need to start another discussion on this. MilborneOne (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Military equipment of the European Union[edit]

Came across the rather strange article Military equipment of the European Union which lumps together all the military equipment and weapons of member states as if they are available to the EU. As far as I know very few military assests are directly assigned to EU missions so this article appears to be a bit misleading. Adding up all the nuclear weapons under the EU seems like they and other weapons are under the control of eu institutions which seems very unlikely as most are allocated to national or NATO interests. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is giving me flashbacks to the discussions about including an EU tally for the List of countries by military expenditures over a decade ago. Maybe the list could be more useful if refocused to actual military organizations like the Eurocorps, but even that might be of dubious value, since the Eurocorps is largely a paper organization. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The only 'military equipment of the European Union' might be a few communications systems held by the EU Military Staff. This article should be listed for deletion - it's very misleading. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say it would be reasonable so long as it makes clear that it is a summary and comparison of EU member states' military equipment, which to my mind would include the page being moved to a title like Military equipment of European Union member states as well as rewriting it to make clear (for example, including a section at the beginning summarising the Common Security and Defence Policy and its limits, as well as perhaps mentioning the Eurocorps per Parsecboy's comment). Absent those sorts of changes, though, I agree that it is beyond misleading. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 09:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Buckshot: the article in its current form implies that EU militaries are lumped together (for instance, that aircraft carriers are jointly controlled), which is not the case at all. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Buckshot on this too. All forces are under national command. Article is misleading and should be deleted Lyndaship (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Agree with above. Article is only a few weeks old. Tag it for deletion. - theWOLFchild 13:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, delete. The EU has no command, control or even monetary interest in member states' militaries. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, article has been given a PROD. MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong keep Member states' capabilities are highly relevant as the CSDP involves a mutual defence clause. The range of equipment that may be used in 'ordinary' EU operations is also relevant. The European Defence Fund also marks the EU's entry into the domain of facilitating the national aquisition of defence equipment as well as funding defence equipment research. The article makes no secret of the fact that the equipment is owned by the member states: This may be further emphesised however. The name is [...] of the European Union, not [...] owned by the EU. The content is relevant in any case, and if Wikipedians believe the current title is misleading I'd be ok with it being renamed National military equipment of the European Union, Military equipment of European Union member states or something similar. A decade ago I'd support the article's deletion, but the remarkable development of the CSDP recently justifies its existance entirely in my opinion. - Ssolbergj (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless a large section, explaining, in all the harrowing detail, the weaknesses, gaps, and lack of willingness of Member States to forge and sustain common defence interests as regards the CSDP, is added, such an article should unquestionably be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I’ll be glad write this section. - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could be so kind as to move the article -- without a redirect -- to Ssolbergj's userspace until such a section can be written. Perhaps with a link back to this discussion. MPS1992 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Please be a little patient. I believe the article is useful for readers and per se correct in its present form also; this is a mere elaboration of the realities of defence integration with regard to equipment and sovereignty. - Ssolbergj (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
No, we won't be patient. It's terribly misleading, because it misrepresents that sovereignty. Do you have any preferred title you'd like it in in userspace? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military equipment of the European Union after the proposed deletion tag(s) were removed. All the users who have commented at this section are invited to comment at the deletion debate. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have just made [this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Personnel_Recovery_Centre&diff=846205119&oldid=844484888] edit to dissassociate the European Personnel Recovery Centre from association with European Union military activities. The EPRC is a seven-nation organisation with observers that include the United States of America. The idea that an organisation with seven members that has no formal links to the EU, that includes associate U.S. membership, can be listed as "of the European Union" of 29 members is baffling.
I would kindly like to emphasize to Ssolbergj that the EU military arrangements consist of an office building on Kortenberg Street in Brussels, where a large number of seconded Member State officers sit making plans, arrangements for multinational command, which include an operations centre in that building, and pre-agreed arrangements to nominate national operations centres such as Potsdam or Mont Valerian as headquarters for EU missions, several ongoing EU missions, with forces which sit under those missions for the duration of their deployment, and a bunch of cooperative administrative arrangements like OCCAR and PESCO for saving money in military procurement. *Nothing* qualifies as a "EU military unit or formation" except the battlegroups. The categories you have been adding to various European intergovernmental projects would also lead, if left unchanged, to every military organisation that has ever been nominated as available for United Nations activities being listed in a category "Military units and formations of the United Nations" which is farcical. Units are assigned to temporary EU missions for specific limited periods, they come home, and they leave any association with EU control. Please, stop making edits that can make readers assume the EU has any permanent operational military activities beyond the Kortenberg building and its associated missions. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with Buckshot on this. The article links several programs that are bi-national or tri-national as if they were creations of some mythical pan European cooperation. Misleading at best if not deceptive.Tirronan (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Arctic geography question[edit]

Does the River Petsamojoki near Petsamo have other names, recognisable on Wiki? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

An internet download about Finnish botanists suggests that the Pechenga River is one and the same. The Russian name for Petsamo is Pechenga (Russian: Пече́нга). Alansplodge (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
See also fi:Petsamonjoki and sr:Печенга (река) which both seem to say that the Russian name is just "Pechenga" without the "River" qualifier. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks see Operation Benedict for the details. Keith-264 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Well done on that Keith-264 and keep up the good work. I have added the Russian and Finnish language names to the Pechenga River article and created a redirect thus: Petsamonjoki. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Most kind of you to say, thanks. I notice that I managed to type it wrong too. The article is nearly ready for a B class review. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Managing Campaign Box For Vietnam War Template[edit]

How should we manage and organize/streamline the campaign box for the Vietnam War found here Template:Campaignbox_Vietnam_War?

A few comments that I posted above are here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Managing Campaignbox Bloat A bicyclette (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for MAUD Committee needs attention[edit]

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for MAUD Committee; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

United States Space Force[edit]

FYI: Since the announcement that the president wants a new service there has been an explosion of edits on space articles, which many of you will want to review to make sure that they’re accurate and don’t violate crystal ball or original research. Garuda28 (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Italian to English wiki request[edit]

[70]

Does anyone know how to make this work on English wiki pls? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you wanting to just use that image on en.wiki, or are you looking for a translated version? Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a public domain image, transfer it to Commons then any Wiki project can use it. Is that right? — Marcus(talk) 18:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. But if Keith wants an English translation, I'd suggest asking at the Graphics Lab. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just the image, the language doesn't matter. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've clicked on the image and tried to get the edit screen to copy the file address but it isn't there.Keith-264 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)