Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

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

Coordinator election nominations open[edit]

G'day everyone! Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to add that a nomination for TomStar81 to be appointed as a Coordinator Emeritus has been added to the election page here. Voting has commenced for this part of the election, and all project members are encouraged to participate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day all, just a reminder now we are at the half-way point of the nomination period, that if you are interested in running, feel free to nominate for the election! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Last day for nominations people! If you are of a mind to run for one of the ten coordinator positions, you have until 23:59 (UTC) 14 September to nominate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Canadian ranks[edit]

Just noticed on the NORAD page that it states; "...the deputy commander is always a Canadian three-maple-leaf general" (Lieutenant-general). I know that Canadian rank insignia use maple leafs (leaves?) instead of stars, like the US and other countries, but the UK doesn't use stars either, and you often hear UK general and flag officers referred to as "n-star" generals and admirals, even though UK rank insignia use combinations of crowns, pips, and crossed swords & batons. Are Canadian general and flag officers always referred to as "n-maple-leaf" generals or admirals? Is the word "star" ever used in place of "maple leaf"? Thanks - wolf 19:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

We have a section Three-star rank#Canadian three-maple-leaf ranks but it's unsourced. I couldn't get anything out of Google ngram, except that the phrase "three star general" was unknown before WWII. The maple leaves were only used 1968–2013, then restored in 2016.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendall-K1 (talkcontribs) 16:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'm basically just wondering if "three-maple-leaf general" is accurate, or even appropriate, or if it should just read "three-star general". It just seems... odd, when I read it like that. Cheers - wolf 22:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems odd to me, and I would change it. If "three star" doesn't seem right you could say "lieutenant general" or whatever the Canadian equivalent is. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Three-star/three-leaf general is ambiguous. Use an actual rank. Llammakey (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark 46 torpedo[edit]

The article lead currently reads The Mark 46 torpedo is the backbone of the United States Navy's lightweight anti-submarine warfare torpedo inventory, and is the current NATO standard. These aerial torpedoes are designed to attack high-performance submarines, and current, since September 1996,[3] variants, such as the Mark 46 Mod 5, were expected to remain in service until 2015. In 1989, a major upgrade program for the Mod 5 began to improve its shallow-water performance, resulting in the Mod 5A and Mod 5A(S). (my emphasis)

Well, were they retired three years ago, or are they still in use? This is embarrassing! Andrewa (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Variants introduced in September 1996 were expected to remain in service until 2015. Any variants introduced after September 1996 might be expected to remain in service until after 2015. Check which variants have been placed in service since '96, I'd say.. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I searched around a bit and couldn't find any sources that talk about this. If anyone knows a good place to look, more info would be good to have. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Any better? Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
This one is going to be tough, the latest version you are talking about is a service life extension program. That being the case how many were upgraded and are they still carried in the loadout? Well, 1st the Navy isn't going to say until they are declared obsolete. Secondly, the MK 56 head is a drop-in replacement to the MK 46. How many are installed again the Navy isn't going to say.Tirronan (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
It is from a press release, so not the most reliable source, but this page says the US is selling kits to the Netherlands to convert their Mk 46 to Mk 54. As the page is dated August 2018 I think it is safe to assume they are still in use by Nato for the moment. The availability of non-primary sources at this stage is unlikely. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Roderick Stephen Hall[edit]

I came across this CIA article on Roderick Stephen Hall and his mission to the Brenner Pass while doing some work on the Axis war crimes in Italy‎ article. Currently the Heinrich Andergassen article states "He was executed by Italy for his role in the Holocaust" but, according to the German Wikipedia article, he was executed by the Allies for the murder of Hall, as well as 6 other allied soldiers, alongside August Schiffer and Albert Storz. I haven't been able to verify this through reliable sources however. Has anybody come across a reliable source that could confirm this? Turismond (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Cancel that, found a German source to confirm this. Turismond (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh Confucius Engvar B question[edit]

Does anyone know what's happened to importScript('User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js');? There is something called Regex editor in its place. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Keith, I have that installed, but didn't notice it going offline. I saw that there was some discussion on Ohconfucius' talk page about the script, maybe it has been suspended pending a fix? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Peacemaker, could be; I've left him a message so will wait. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC - US Special Operations Forces template[edit]

I've opened an RfC at Template talk:US Special Operations Forces#RFC - should "Psychological Operations" be listed as a "type" under the Air Force and Navy?. --Jpcase (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Scope query on self-proclaimed revolutionaries[edit]

Are groups such as the Symbionese Liberation Army within the scope of this project? They do not seem to be part of military history in general. Kges1901 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  • That's an interesting question. Does Milhist consider organizations that have been labeled by government agencies as "terrorist organizations" to be within the scope of military history? If so, are individuals or groups who have been identified by similar agencies as "domestic terrorists" classified differently by Milhist than those that have been operating against multiple countries, or would both be within Milhist's scope? Also, would a "domestic terrorist" be classified differently by Milhist than an "anarchist" or "armed radical"? I just did a very quick search online to see what the FBI might have published about the SLA, and found its website page re: Patty Hearst (see excerpted text below). Will be interested to read what other Milhist members think. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Hearst ... had been kidnapped by a group of armed radicals that billed themselves as the Symbionese Liberation Army, or SLA. Led by a hardened criminal named Donald DeFreeze, the SLA wanted nothing less than to incite a guerrilla war against the U.S. government and destroy what they called the “capitalist state.... They were, in short, a band of domestic terrorists."

  • This is why I think you raised an interesting and important question. Although the FBI phrasing above seems to indicate military (via the phrase "guerilla war"), it also seems to indicate civil by terming DeFreeze "a hardened criminal". Does Milhist have a threshold for defining when an individual/group/action transitions from civil law into military? 47thPennVols (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • An interesting issue that is on the fringe of the project. In my opinion, if either the organisation is paramilitary in practical terms (organised and operate in a military way) or it is engaged by paramilitary or military forces, it comes under our scope. If it is predominantly criminal (including terrorists) and is engaged by civil law enforcement only, then I don't think it does. There is plenty of grey around this, and I think we look at orgs on a case by case basis. In relation to the orgs listed, the Symbionese Liberation Army, Weather Underground, Women's Brigade of Weather Underground, Black Liberation Army and May 19th Communist Organization were dealt with entirely as criminal orgs by civil law enforcement, and there was no military response I'm aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"paramilitary in practical terms (organised and operate in a military way)" That would seem to include the Panthers, too, wouldn't it? And Black September? And Red Brigades? And... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
What exactly was paramilitary about the organisation and operations of the Black Panthers, for example? I see nothing in the article. Did they form sections or platoons? Adopt ranks? Did they conduct attacks using such organisational elements? I'm also not aware of them being opposed by other than civil law enforcement. The Black September Organisation was organised as a classic terrorist organisation, using cells, not sections or platoons, and they were dealt with (at Munich at least) by police, not soldiers. The Red Brigades were also a criminal, terrorist organisation, and military force was not used to deal with them, just specialist police. So all your examples are marginal at best, none are clearly paramilitary in practical terms, and none were opposed using military force. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I have boldly detagged the articles I linked as none of them employed elements of military organization. Kges1901 (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator election voting now open[edit]

G'day everyone! Voting for the project coordinator election is now open. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. Please vote here by 23:59 UTC on 28 September! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much for handling all of the admin work related to the voting process. Are members still allowed to ask questions of the coordinator candidates now that the voting phase has opened? 47thPennVols (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No problem. I see no reason why not. Some nominees only nominated near to the closing, so I think continuing to ask questions is quite reasonable during the voting period if it will help you decide who to vote for. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Have a great weekend! 47thPennVols (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

All hail social media![edit]

Please see recent message from my talk page. Here. I'm a bit flabbergasted. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Reddit is often the driver of massive spikes in page views. The Emu War article (and its old infobox declaring it a victory for the emus!) is periodically highlighted there, leading to tens of thousands of page views and a surge of vandalism. As far as I'm aware, there's no rule against Wikipedia editors promoting "their" articles on Reddit, as long as it's done in a neutral kind of way. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Cockatoo Island Dockyard[edit]

I've just written this article on an important Australian naval dockyard to fill a big gap that had gotten missed over the years - it built or worked on an awful lot of ships with articles. I'm more of a built heritage person, though and I don't know too much about ships, so I'd love it if anyone from here who does could take a look at it and fill in some gaps. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this article - it's amazing that we didn't have an article on this key Australian (and Allied in WW2) naval facility. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair use of File:Do17z 20mm.jpg[edit]

User:Flightsoffancy is attempting to use a non-free image, File:Do17z 20mm.jpg, on the Dornier Do 17 and MG FF cannon articles under fair use claims. Any help from experts on fair use would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria might be able to provide some advice? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67:@Nikkimaria:Hello. I am looking to resolve this dispute. Last week I spent discussing its copyright status, and the Fair Use was deemed valid for the subject per BU Rob13. The subject is documented in the Wiki article and in 3 books, but images of items is very rare. Why is it important? I shows the Do 17 was used in ground attack missions, not just in level bombing. Regards. Flightsoffancy (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
If other images of the bomber and cannon exist (as it appears they do?), then it becomes much harder to justify the use of a fair-use image on that article. The image currently has a detailed rationale for an article that doesn't appear to exist (Do-17z Film fragment) - if that article did exist then the use might be justified there. The rationale as currently presented for Dornier Do 17 is inadequate, and in the absence of the specific article on the fragment I'm not seeing justification for the historic-images tag either. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Dear Nikkimaria, to answer your question: there is no copy-free image of the Do 17 aircraft with the 20mm cannon (and very, very few images with the cannon). I have told BilCat he needed to replace the current image with like copy-free, but never did (because he cannot!). I spent 3 weeks arguing about this photo because it is a one-of-a-kind image, and is acceptable for Fair Use. Now, this image is a portion of a much larger scan of a 3 frames of the film. I uploaded that image for the Film stock article, however in that case there was other acceptable alternatives, thus I did not argue that removal (I can provide you that image if you wish to see). Regardless, that other image has no bearing to this one and you can ignore.
Rational: During the Battle of Britain the Do 17 was equipped with 20mm cannons, in particular was a mission on The Hardest Day which is considered the peak of the Battle of Britain, all of this is well documented but images are rare. I can provide source data for any question you have regarding this. It is all documented. There is no question the image is valuable, photographic proof of one of the pivotal days in one of the most important engagements in WW2.
Over the I have uploaded a dozen or more photos, a number moved to commons, at least 2 have been removed with no protest. I have also had some of my edits in past removed with no protest (but did have lengthly discussion in 1 case). I have been a wiki editor for over 11 years, so I have have some understanding of the rules.
Do you have other questions or concerns? Thanks for listening. :) Flightsoffancy (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks like the image has now been deleted - did the rationale contend that the image was of The Hardest Day? What additional value do you feel is provided by an image of the plane with this specific cannon, on top of other images of the plane? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
All the other images depict the aircraft in its high altitude level bombing role. This image shows the aircraft equipped for a very low altitude ground attack role, another role described but rarely shown for this bomber. Thus the image supports source claims and displays the multiple roles employed by this warplane. As to your question, the squadron this aircraft is in (KG2) was known to be a participant in "The Hardest Day". If the image is of that day is yet to be research, however it is for certain a participant of the Battle of Britain. Flightsoffancy (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Compendium of the Confederate Armies[edit]

The compendiums of the Confederate Armies (by each state) by Stewart Sifakis reliable? Or are they reliable as the Union books, I have from if anyone remembers the discussion on my articles for artillery Connecticut. Adamdaley (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

They look suspect to be honest. Are they reprints of earlier books? Judging from Worldcat and a quick Google search the publishers look to be genealogical publishers printing mainly primary sources. The compendiums don't appear to be held by any university libraries (mainly public libraries), but other titles by Sifakis (like his Who's Who of the Civil War) are, even in Australia. So, the compendiums seem a bit marginal to my eye, but I would defer to the Civil War buffs. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

CreateSpace Publishing[edit]

I've noticed on Amazon (U.S. and Australia) quite a few books now are through some sort of publishing source called "CreateSpace". Would these be unreliable due to the fact that it's not a reputable publishing company and secondary, the author could also be suspect. Any thoughts? Adamdaley (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It is Amazon's self-publishing house. So to me, the answer is a very qualified maybe. I know nothing about knitting but if I wanted to publish a book on it through Createspace I certainly could. So if the author is an well-known expert in his field and it is well supported with citations then I'd say yes. Otherwise, I'd consider it someone's opinion that got published.Tirronan (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed - this is self publishing, and so WP:SPS applies here. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Unless the "self" is a reliable expert in the field. Thus, qualified maybe. Tirronan said....auntieruth (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It should be considered not an WP:RS publication or work, unless it is by someone who is very well known in their field, who has very good credentials; and frankly if the writer/author has good credentials in their field they could get a known publisher to put out the work instead. Kierzek (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

First Schleswig War[edit]

Why was the Royal Danish Navy preventing ships of the Hanseatic cities from trading during the First Schleswig War? The Hanseatic cities, such as Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck, Stettin and Danzig were independent city states, and not part of the Kingdom of Prussia. Nonetheless, the Royal Danish Navy did capture merchant ships from these citie engaged in lawful trade. Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge/split suggestion for Dongfeng military vehicles...[edit]

Adding merge/split suggestions for the Humvee manufacturing in China and Dongfeng Mengshi, although the latter could use a split to the Dongfeng EQ2050 and the Dongfeng CSK-131. Ominae (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Concern over Cropped images of senior U.S. Leaders[edit]

I have been noticing a number of images of senior U.S. military leaders being cropped (primarily members of the Joint Chiefs, service staffs, and senior enlisted advisers), with the affect of removing awards, ranks, and other badges that could be quite useful to the reader. This is all on a divers number of pages, so I figured a centralized discussion could be started here on weather the MILHIST community agrees with these changes or what the opinions out there are. Garuda28 (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This is what I am concerned about
Daniel A. Dailey.jpg
Daniel A. Dailey (cropped).jpg
. As you can see all rank and many of the badges have been removed from the frame, which provides a significant amount of background information for military individuals. Garuda28 (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey Garuda28, thanks for bringing this here. I would opine that the cropped photo (in the example you've given, at least) is more useful to all people, even including people who would actually know what those medals mean. Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia, remember, and those medals should be covered in prose. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, particularly for enlisted ranks with sleeve rather than shoulder/collar insignia, the wider shot might be best. In general though, as Ed alludes to, a front-on head and shoulders shot providing a close-up of the face is the gold standard for infobox pics on bios, mainly because it provides the best idea of what they look(ed) like. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
This issue was raised before (and recently), with a few users, or even one in particular, persistently cropping images, with no particular policy, guideline or consensus in support, but only instead by seemingly their own personal preference. I agree with Garuda28 (and Peacemaker67's first sentence). There is no benefit to cropping these images, simply to create the effect of zooming in on the subjects's face. That can be done by simply clicking/tapping on the image. Meanwhile information is being lost, including that of the uniform and what may be in the background. - wolf 08:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)