Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks

Defence Attaches within Embassies[edit]

I am engaged at Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam with Mztourist, who while having spent significant amounts of time on the Vietnam War does not appear to understand the place of a Defence Attache being within an Embassy. In 1972-73 the Military Assistance Command Vietnam HQ was downsized into a enormous Defense Attache Office, under a two-star Defense Attache, made up of over 400 personnel. Given that the organization changed from being an independent DOD command to a DOD major general and staff being part of the large Embassy of the United States, Saigon, I moved the section on the DAO into the Embassy page, where Mztourist tried to remove it. Can I please have some third opinions to advise Mztourist that Defense Attaches aren't independent floating officials responsible to nobody, but are part of Embassies and responsible to Ambassadors? Much appreciate some third opinions here. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Buckshot06 makes some broad unsubstantiated statements and snide comments here, firstly that I don't "appear to understand the place of a Defence Attache being within an Embassy", I understand how a Defense Attache normally works, but that was not the case for DAO Saigon. Secondly he says that DAO "changed from being an independent DOD command to a DOD major general and staff being part of the large Embassy of the United States, Saigon" but without providing any WP:RS that supports this. Thirdly I have never suggested that the Defense Attaches are "independent floating officials responsible to nobody, but are part of Embassies and responsible to Ambassadors." simply that they weren't part of the Embassy and so the sections shouldn't be moved to the Embassy page but should remain on the MACV page or created as a separate page. In support of my position in the discussion on Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam#Move of DAO section to Embassy of the United States, Saigon I referred Buckshot06 to this US Army official history: [1] and in particular these statements: "Because DAO Saigon was subordinate to USSAG [United States Support Activities Group] in operational and intelligence fields, the normal flow of tasking and reporting was through USSAG to CINCPAC and the JCS in Washington." (pages 18-9); "They were given detailed briefings by the Embassy and DAO" (page 144); and "fact sheets prepared by DAO, the JGS, and the American Embassy" (page 145). Buckshot06 however has not provided anything that supports his position other than general references to the role of Defense Attaches and his own assertions. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, let's try it around the other way. I have stated the Defense Attache and his staff were part of the Embassy. You have said they were not, an exception from the normal practice. Can you provide some additional materials about USSAG's command structure and how/why they ended up with, as part of their TOE structure, such a misleadingly named department, situated in another country? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Can I suggest the best place to have this discussion is the article talk page rather than splitting it and having it both here and there? Perhaps a neutrally-worded RfC would be the best way to resolve the dispute? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Buckshot06 you're the one who has made the changes to these pages which have been stable for years. I have given a WP:RS, you don't get to say "let's try it around the other way", you provide WP:RS that DAO Saigon was part of the US Embassy. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not the way WP:BURDEN works, quite. You bear the WP:BURDEN for introducing the material on DAO Saigon into the MACV article with this edit of 14 January 2010. You never referenced it, but it came from a Center for Military History 1985 study, 'From Cease Fire to Capitulation.' [2] It's absolutely uncontested that MACV was inactivated on March 29, 1973, so adding the material to that page is inappropriate. I removed, rather than added, any material to that page - the burden is placed on the person who adds or readds, not removes. Meanwhile, I yes bear the burden for adding the material to the Embassy page, and I'm willing to accept that burden; notwithstanding the obvious, remaining, liaison links for ENHANCE and ENHANCE PLUS etc., to USSAG in Thailand, a Defense Attache and DAO, like other attaches, sit under the Ambassador, Graham Martin in this case. You haven't provided any evidence or started a page for DAO being part of United States Security Assistance Group, where I guess at the moment you think the DAO was a part of; you would bear the burden if you started a page for USSAG.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, addendum. Found something incontrovertible. Lt Col A.J.C. Lavalle (ed), Last Flight from Saigon, USAF Southeast Asia Monograph Series. Page vii in the preface: " a continuous effort under ever-increasing pressure, the US Embassy in Saigon, and its Defense Attache Office (DAO) there, helped plan, prepare for, and ultimately conduct, the final evacuation from South Vietnam." DAO Saigon was no exception to normal practice, and, whatever liaison and technical assistance links with USSAG Saigon and thereupon upward to PACOM, was part of the Embassy. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
So you are saying that I have the WP:BURDEN because I originally added the detail of DAO in 2010? OK, done it is the source I gave above, which clearly states that "DAO Saigon was subordinate to USSAG [United States Support Activities Group] in operational and intelligence fields, the normal flow of tasking and reporting was through USSAG to CINCPAC and the JCS in Washington." In relation to your statement that I "haven't provided any evidence... for DAO being part of United States Security Assistance Group, I never referenced that organisation, the quote referred to United States Support Activities Group - notice the difference? As for your source from Lavalle, I find that weak. DAO was a US Army command and so a US Army history is more likely to correctly address the organisational structure than one word in a preface to a USAF report. You expect everyone to accept that "its" is incontovertible support for your position? Despite what the Army history says? You keep going on and on about how defense attaches normally work, but as I have said DAO Saigon was not normal, it was the successor to MACV which ran the Vietnam War. DAO administered military aid and provided logistical and maintenance support to the South Vietnamese military and ran the entire US military intelligence function in Vietnam, all activities vastly more involved than a normal defense attache. Mztourist (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Give it a rest, Mztourist. The DAO was part of the Embassy; the Lavelle source confirms that, and that conforms to the normal practice. It may be a USAF historical study, but that doesn't make it unreliable. The DAO *was not* a U.S. Army command - it was jointly made up of Army, Navy, Air, but mostly contractors and Vietnamese civilians, as the LeGro text shows. Vietnam was not just an Army war, nor are Embassy DAOs just Army. However, it was a DAO in a somewhat unique position, as we know. Most of the operational and intelligence reporting, from the CMH source, did flow to U.S. Support Activities Group/Seventh Air Force, excuse my typo, but that does not move it from it's organisational and administrative subordination to the Ambassador. I've provided a solid source saying it *was* part of the Embassy, and you have nothing to contravene that statement. If you would like additional evidence of the Defense Attache's reporting to the Ambassador, (a) it's in the article itself: "At 07:00, Major General Homer D Smith Jr., the Defence Attache, advised Ambassador Martin that fixed wing evacuations should cease and that Operation Frequent Wind, the helicopter evacuation of U.S. personnel and at-risk Vietnamese should commence. Ambassador Martin refused to accept General Smith's recommendation and instead insisted on visiting Tan Son Nhut to survey the situation for himself," or, (b), the recall of the deputy defense attache to General Smith, Brig. Gen. Richard Baughn, being 'abruptly recalled' to Washington DC, at Ambassador Martin's insistence, for endorsing the 9th MAB's potential use as a Frequent Wind security force without Martin properly clearing it - in the footnote to page 111 of this document.
If the DAO was not part of the Embassy, how could Ambassador Martin have compelled the return home of a Brigadier General?
If you wish to argue that the DAO was part of USSAG/7AF in Thailand, there much be much more evidence available than one offhand reference to correspondence in operational and intelligence matters - can't you find some? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't tell me to "give it a rest", you have provided one word in one line of a USAF report as "incontrovertible evidence". Well here's another WP:RS for you, the official Marine Corps history [3] at page 6 which states "Major General Murray quickly discovered that defense attache duty in Saigon in 1973 would differ significantly from the norm. As the senior American military officer in South Vietnam, he would work with the Ambassador, but report to the Secretary of Defense. The Ambassador only had direct authority over the defense attache in the areas of public affairs and media matters." That together with the US Army history is incontrovertible. I don't need to provide proof of the DAO Saigon reporting line through United States Support Activities Group, just disprove that DAO Saigon was part of the Embassy, which I have done. Drop the stick and revert your changes. Mztourist (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Finally!! "Work together with the Ambassador"!! You've quoted something that admits the DAO was attached to the Ambassador!! We've already agreed that there were two reporting lines; that's clear. What I am arguing, and you have not advanced any evidence against, is that this remnant of HQ MACV was technically part of the Embassy. That accords with all the evidence, yours and mine, and accords with both removal of the data from the MACV article (it was shut down, that's logical), and addition of the data to the Embassy article (that's where the DAO organizationally resided). The DAO was part of the Embassy, though with lots of reporting lines to USSAG/7AF and higher up in the DOD chain. So too do DAOs in Embassies today - responsible to the Ambassador for some things, and responsible to the relevant COCOM, DSCA, and/or DIA for others; in Saigon in 1973 (via USSAG/7AF), in Hanoi today, and worldwide today. But that does not change the technical placing of the DAO within the Embassy. It was clearly *not* part of USSAG/7AF, you haven't even tried to argue that. So no, I will not be reverting my changes. In particular, readding the DAO material to the MACV page would be ridiculous.

'..only in public affairs and media matters?' ..Martin sent the deputy DA home for arguing that the evacuation security force should be a whole Marine Amphibious Brigade!! Clearly things could be fluid, and his authority extended to a much greater extent!!

Try and answer me this: if we remove the data from the MACV page, and we remove it from the Embassy page, where would we put it? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course the DAO worked with the Ambassador! I have never suggested otherwise. "Work with" does not mean "attached to" as you attempt to equate them. Your argument that the DAO was under the Ambassador and the Embassy, is completely contradicted by the quote above from the Marines history which states that the DAO reported to the Secretary of Defense. The quotes I have given from 2 WP:RS are very clear about the role and reporting lines of DAO Saigon and yet you spin them to try to back up your position based on tenuous comments in USAF documents and your own OR. I really don't see how much more explicit sources can get than: "The Ambassador only had direct authority over the defense attache in the areas of public affairs and media matters." DAO Saigon as part of USSAG/7AF is your diversion, all I have ever said about it is the quote from the Army history. As I have said the DAO information belongs back on the MACV page (where it was for 8+ years before you unilaterally changed it based on your own opinions) or a separate page can be created for DAO Saigon. It does not belong on the US Embassy Saigon page, because the 2 WP:RS I have provided clearly state that it was a DoD command and not part of the Embassy. Mztourist (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
None of the information you present provides RS about the DAO being a separate DOD entity. You have provided no organization charts or proper chains of command. You seem to have missed the Ambassador's authority & action to send personnel - the deputy defense attache - home to DC, which substantiates the Ambassador's direct control over DAO personnel. Yes, of course all defense attache staff in all the Embassies do have a line to SecDef, as I wrote above, though not directly. But DAOs are part of embassies. The best place for the information, at present, remains the Embassy page, substantiated by normal practice and the evidence I've provided. If you can provide some kind of alternative evidence about the DAO being part of the DOD structure - where it fitted in, perhaps a 1973 DOD org chart with the DAO Saigon reporting directly to SecDef - we could split it. What's absolutely clear is that it does *not* belong at the MACV page, which was disestablished two months after the DAO was established, and where multiple sources say DAO took over many of its functions - *because* it was disestablished. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, one of the potential advantages for having this discussion at this page was the higher visibility for third opinions. Nobody however has ventured third opinions in the course of this discussion. As the lead coordinator, would you like to comment, or prompt some comment from other coordinators? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: I have just found the 1973 CINCPAC Command History accessible at [4], pages 51 and 52 (77/818 and 78/818), which includes a large slab of text describing the establishment of the 1973-onwards DAO Saigon, and its precise command relationships, to both the Ambassador and CINCPAC. It's quite a long text, so will place it at the MACV talk page where this discussion began, and also at the Embassy article. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
In my view, all your long quote does is establish reporting chains for the DAO. Your own quote has DATT reporting directly to CINPAC for security planning, tasking only with keeping the ambassador informed. Further, dispute resolution between DATT and the chief of diplomatic mission was placed in the hands of the DIA director. The quote does not precisely define command relationships. It states that DATT is to keep the mission "informed," but for anything relating to security assistance it came under CINCPAC and SecDef. It's also odd to suggest that DAO couldn't be viewed as MACV's successor because it was established prior to MACV's closing down. That's how these things normally establish the successor organization prior to folding down the existing organization. Given the scale of military assistance in South Vietnam compared to other regions, I think it's misguided to assume the DAO there would be similar to others at the time. As for the ambassador's authority...they typically have control over who may operate from the embassy, but to suggest that authority extends to control over missions and other activities in all cases simply isn't correct for this time period at least. I would say if you want to split hairs the DAO in this case was attached to the embassy, with the ambassador having normal control over personnel (in terms of sending them home at least). But your own quote clearly states that DAO was responsible to CINCPAC directly for all security assistance programs in SVN. Intothatdarkness 15:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou Intothatdarkness. Third opinions here are super needed. Of the 800+ pages of the 1973 Command History, this was the section of most concentrated relevance. Yes, the DATT was responsible to the Ambassador, Director DIA, and CINCPAC for different functions. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Buckshot06 The quotes I have provided make it very clear that DAO Saigon was not a "normal" defense attache and not under the control of the Embassy. Thank you for the new ref you have provided as it supports what I have been saying already: page 50 makes it clear that DAO Saigon was established by CINCPAC with an Army General in command. Page 51 states that the Defense Attache "was assisted by an Attache element consisting of Service attaches and assistant Service attaches who performed traditional attache functions. The attache element was under the the supervision of the DATT [Defense Attache] and the Chief of the U.S. Diplomatic Mission [Ambassador] to the extent provided by law and in accordance with Executive Orders and such other instructions as the President might promulgate... The DATT was also responsible to the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for all military and political-military intelligence functions. The DATT and his assistant had direct access to the Chief of the U.S. Diplomatic Mission on all attache matters and were to keep the Mission chief fully informed. Unresolved differences between the Mission chief and the DATT concerning attache matters were to be referred by the DATT to the Director of the DIA. Under CINCPAC's responsibility, however, were the DATT's military assistance functions. The DATT was the representative of the Secretary of Defense (and CINCPAC) with respect to the U.S. security assistance program in the RVN and coordinated with the Service divisions in their planning and management of the respective Military Assistance Service Funded (MASF) programs in support of the RVNAF. The DATT was CINCPAC's Single Senior Military Representative in the RVN." This structure seems to be much like the structure of MACV during the war and the description makes it very clear that DAO Saigon was not part of the Embassy. The "attache element" was under the joint control of the Defense Attache and the Ambassador, miltary intelligence went to the DIA, while the military assistance functions were under CINCPAC. And then there's the definitive statement on page 52: "The DAO remained under the command of COMUSMACV until the deactivation of that command on 27 March at which time command passed to the Commander USSAG/7th Air Force." Accordingly the DAO Saigon sections should either be restored to the MACV page (as the sub-command and then direct successor to MACV) or put on a new standalone page. Mztourist (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Based on the sources, my opinion is that while the DAO in Saigon might have been attached to the embassy in a personnel sense (which is normal), in terms of direct command and control it clearly did NOT fall under the embassy. If you want to get all org chart about it, Saigon DAO had a dotted line relationship with the embassy and ambassador, with a solid line relationship existing between it and CINCPAC or USSAG/7th AF (depending on the time frame in question). In this it would be similar to the CIA's relationship with embassies and ambassadors: they use diplomatic cover and may be sent home at the request of the ambassador but do not fall under the embassy or ambassador for command and control purposes. As a MACV successor organization and not really a standard DAO operation I think it makes more sense to leave it with MACV. Otherwise it creates the impression that the Saigon DAO was similar to, say, the Defense Attache in the embassy in Norway, and that is clearly not the case. Intothatdarkness 19:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou again for your willingness to intervene in this heated argument Intothatdarkness.
Three things:
DAO Saigon had a solid direct command line from the Ambassador to the Defense Attache, as per normal practice ("to the extent provided by law and in accordance with Executive Orders") for *commonplace defense attache functions*. This is what appears to have been overlooked by most editors. This is the reason why the Defense Attache was called a Defense Attache, rather than a chief of a security assistance group or some such. While there was a bunch of separate unique Vietnam-related tasks this particular DAO had, having some similarities to COCOM links for example the DAO in Liberia has today, the reason it was *part of the Embassy* was the commonplace defense attache functions. Otherwise yes, with all the reporting relationships to USSAG/7AF and PACOM, it would have been made a separate DOD rather than DOS organization. So if we characterize the reporting relationships to USSAG/7AF & PACOM as 'solid line relationships', equally there were 'solid line relationships' to the Ambassador, and precedent dictated that those (second set of) relationships dictated the name of the organization.
My problem with the idea of hosting the DAO data on the MACV page is that MACV *did not exist* after March 1973. It had been disestablished. Would you kindly humor me and explain again why this encyclopedia should associate data of an organization which existed 1973-1975, with a separate organization whose existence *ended* in March 1973? Surely, in all reason and rational argument, the two should be separated? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Put another way, WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME says that 'When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used; however, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names.' If for the sake of argument, the DAO is, for a moment, seen as the successor to MACV (which I do not believe) the MACV article should be renamed DAO Saigon. Yet this is far-fetched; MACV is certainly independently notable, and should retain its own article. The DAO Saigon has notability *separate* from MACV, and has lots of sources; for this reason also, I do not believe it belongs on the MACV page.
Again many thanks for interposing and bringing a more detached, cooler head to this now intemperate argument. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Buckshot06 MACV will remain as a separate page under that name, the only issue to be resolved is whether DAO Saigon goes back on the MACV page or is created as a separate page, I am fine with either. In relation to your snide remarks aimed at me ("a more detached cooler head to this now intemperate argument"), I counter that your refusal to admit you're wrong based on flimsy evidence is what has drawn this out. Your evidence to satisfy WP:BURDEN is/was what exactly? (1) the words "the US Embassy in Saigon, and its Defense Attache Office" in the USAF report, with no greater analysis of the DAO structure; (2) a footnote in another USAF report referring to the recall of USAF BG Ricard Baughn which you then OR'ed to mean that the Ambassador was in charge of everything, which can be simply explained away with the line from the CINCPAC report referring to the joint responsibility for the normal Defense Attache element and also (my OR here), that Graeme Martin as Ambassador had a direct line to Kissinger and the White House and could presumably exercise influence that way; (3) your misstatement above that "DAO Saigon had a solid direct command line from the Ambassador to the Defense Attache, as per normal practice" in relation to the traditional attache functions, when the CINCPAC quote actually says "The attache element was under the the supervision of the DATT and the Chief of the U.S. Diplomatic Mission to the extent provided by law and in accordance with Executive Orders and such other instructions as the President might promulgate..." so it was a joint command, not a "solid direct command line from the Ambassador to the Defense Attache"; and (4) your continued assertions as to what is the normal structure of defense attaches and therefore that DAO Saigon was the same. As against that flimsy evidence we have the official US Army, USMC and CINCPAC histories which provide incontrovertible evidence that DAO Saigon was not part of the US Embassy. In your 8 May comment you challenged me to find evidence "that the DAO was part of USSAG/7AF in Thailand", well you provided that (thanks) in the CINCPAC report: "The DAO remained under the command of COMUSMACV until the deactivation of that command on 27 March at which time command passed to the Commander USSAG/7th Air Force." Its past time for you to drop the stick, acknowledge you're wrong and either restore the information to the MACV page or create a separate DAO Saigon page. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I don't think this is is an "either/or" situation. It appears to me that this information about DAO Saigon should be summarised on the MACV page in an "Aftermath" section or similar, but has sufficient reliable sources to justify its stand-alone notability and should therefore have a stand-alone page with all available and relevant information. Perhaps at Defense Attaché Office, Saigon (1973–1975). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Peacemaker67, I agree. Mztourist (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Mztourist, whether or not you believe me, I was referring to us both when I used the word 'intemperate'; I know I'm getting annoyed; you seem to be; third opinions are always welcome in these situations. Truly, wasn't trying to make a snide comment at you; merely reflecting that we were getting annoyed with each other.
Re PM67's suggestion, I do not agree; (a) the proposed page would have to be at Defense Attache Office, Embassy of the United States, Saigon (1973-75) because the normal defence attache functions remained in the normal relationship with the Ambassador (the original text mentioned five professional attaches) separate from all the Vietnam-unique functions; (b) unless the proposed page was over 60kB readable text size, it should be upmerged to the Embassy page anyway. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
No Buckshot06, you're wrong, just accept it, stop going on about the "normal defense attache functions", DAO Saigon was not part of the Embassy, so the page would not be Defense Attache Office, Embassy of the United States, Saigon (1973-75). I accept Peacemaker67's suggestion of Defense Attaché Office, Saigon (1973–1975) and invite Intothatdarkness's comments. The evidence and consensus here is clear. Mztourist (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I have read your comment, Mztourist. If the DAO was not part of the Embassy, as you argue, can anyone provide me any reliable sources as to what it *was* part of? The USAF source says 'the Embassy and its Defense Attache Office.' DAOs have invariably been part of Embassies; that's where they sit. So if this one was not part of an Embassy, what organization was it part of? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Given the nature of the Saigon DAO, I think it's best served with a solid summary at MACV and possibly a standalone article as Peacemaker67 suggests. It was clearly NOT a normal DAO operation given its successor status for MACV and its relationship with CINPAC and other organizations. While it might technically have been attached to the embassy, it was clearly serving a larger that was rather unique. Lumping it in with the embassy implies it was just another DAO when it clearly was not and also obscures its role as MACV's direct successor. Intothatdarkness 15:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comment, Intothatdarkness. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Buckshot06 your comment "can anyone provide me any reliable sources as to what it *was* part of?" is just being obtuse at this point. The CINCPAC report clearly states "The DAO remained under the command of COMUSMACV until the deactivation of that command on 27 March at which time command passed to the Commander USSAG/7th Air Force." Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

As per consensus, I have created Defense Attaché Office, Saigon (1973–1975). Mztourist (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019[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) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Project related portals could use some maintainers[edit]

Despite the RFC at WP:ENDPORTALS being resolved as "strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time", a number of users have engaged on a good-faith program of deleting portals in batches or singly. I have long been a participant in this project and as part of my involvement I have maintained and watched Portal:American Civil War and other war-related portals. Now with Wikipedia much evolved the usefulness of portals as a content-space has been called into question. I'm not sure I have answers. I know that it's not practical for me to maintain all the entries on this tool:

None of the above are currently listed for discussion, so far as I'm aware. Is there anyone here who'd like to list themselves as maintainers for these fully developed navigation tools? I'd be all too happy to show interested parties how to do the actual work, which at this point is not nearly as intensive as redeveloping these portals from scratch.

There deserves to be a fuller discussion about how to rehabilitate and increase visibility of portals but at this point the trend is to delete many of those which aren't actively maintained or are inadequately developed.

There a bunch of backstory to this deletion process and I'm not trying to canvass for MfD participants. I'm merely trying to save work many project members have done over the last 15 years before damage is done. Any project interest? BusterD (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that Portal:Fortifications got caught in the blast radius. RobDuch (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The portal mentioned was one of thousands created in good faith by portal enthusiasts using automated code and based on the fortification template. This is part of the backstory. Rough consensus has been established that totally automated portals created by one user and not actively maintained by any user don't meet the guidelines for keeping. In clearing all of those, many manually maintained portals have also been put up for discussion. BusterD (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review: Albert Kesselring[edit]

I have nominated Albert Kesselring for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Butting heads with an IP over a template - mea culpa[edit]

I suspect I'm being cantankerous/bloody-minded/adjective-of-your-choice in my interaction with an IP editor over Template:WWI_tanks. The IP has expanded the navbox with many WWI vehicles of which I was not aware and the also at the List of combat vehicles of World War I (prototype tanks, self-propelled guns, armoured cars et ) - which is good. And it throws up lots of things that possibly warrant articles of their own or covering in general articles of the "armoured vehicle development in X country" type. But to my mind while a list article can handle redlinks and supplementary comments this has resulted in a very big very redlinked navbox. (I note also that some of the vehicles are French and they have very long names). So far I've suggested a discussion but it's likely by now that they think I'm a bad faith actor. If anyone has ideas on how I can engage constructively that would be helpful. Working in Navbox space is tricky because it's unlike an article where you can add appropriate cites. And I'm out of practice editing on Wikipedia and policy. Of course if I'm being a complete ass and a fool do tell me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That navbox is much longer than the ones before and after it in the navbox series (Templates Interwar tanks & WWII tanks). Also this is named Template:WWI tanks but the header lists "World War I armoured fighting vehicles" and includes many non-tank vehicles. The non-tanks sure looks to be out of scope to me. I see no recent discussion at Template talk:WWI tanks; in depth discussion on template specifics should be directed to there imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Including armored trains? Seriously? SPGs are out of scope IMO, & I'd be disinclined to keep armored cars & trucks, either. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Which are all non-tanks. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't think I needed to say that. ;p Except that the header on the infobox was AFVs, so, broadly, they'd belong. However... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
the IP expanded the scope. Perhaps hiving off the non-tanks to a new navbox would retain the intent without losing the effort or the new editor. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Summer–Autumn Campaign of 1941[edit]

Hello WP MilHist! I'm working through the backlog at Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009 and came across Summer–Autumn Campaign of 1941. It seems legit, but only has one source, and is orphaned. I was wondering if anyone could help answer some questions for me. Is it indeed a legitimate term? If so, is it really something that needs its own standalone article, or would it be better off merged elsewhere? And third, if it is legit and should stand alone, where can I link to it to de-orphan it? I'm happy to do any legwork, I just need to be pointed in the right direction. Thank you in advance! ♠PMC(talk) 01:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears that a merge into Operation Barbarossa is in order, as the subject article presents an outline of the Soviet view of that campaign. RobDuch (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Either that, or Al Stewart’s Roads to Moscow... Qwirkle (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This was created by a now-banned editor as part of a large campaign of creating an often duplicative set of articles on World War II using Soviet/Russian terminology and historiography. Redirecting to the Operation Barbarossa article seems sensible, though it is a shame that there isn't an article on the first phase of the 1941 invasion of the USSR. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Joking aside, and with due consideration for the damage a particular activist has caused by crusades on similar issues, using names only from the German POV (for only one example) creates a confirmation bias in research.

If you look up contemporaneous material on the “civil war”, you see a different picture from the “war between the states”; “Bull Run” gives a different picture from “Manassas”. This sort of thing sometimes shows up in unexpected places; American newsmen, for instance, were active in Germany until US entry in WWI, and often used different names for battles than did the British or French.

Obviously, this is something of preaching to the converted; the historiographical standards for military articles on Wiki are much, much higher than those for most of the rest of Wikipedia. Still worth keeping in mind, though. Qwirkle (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly a bit intimidated by the prospect of merging something like this into Operation Barbarossa, which is a lengthy GA on a topic I know little about. Would a redirect alone be reasonable, with perhaps a note at the talk page there? ♠PMC(talk) 14:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

"Panzer (disambiguation)" and "Panzer" page moves.[edit]

Project members may want to give their input on the discussion about page moves at Talk:Panzer (disambiguation), which also concerns the Panzer article. (Hohum @) 19:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just reverted some premature moves and redirects that attempted, probably inadvertently, to bypass the discussions. - BilCat (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Cold War for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Cold War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cold War until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Expeditionary energy economics[edit]

Hello, I am a new page reviewer and just added someone else's new article, Expeditionary energy economics, to your project. I am unsure about how to add this article to one of your specific Task Forces, so please proceed as you see fit. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)