Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

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

Period Task Forces missing[edit]

Dear wikipedians, just noticed that for some historical periods (e.g.: Victorian Era, Interwar Era, Post-Cold War) there is no task force set up. Hence articles in scope of them can't be tagged. What is the process to establish these? Thanks,DPdH (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ask if anyone is interested (which you've near enough done. Task forces aren't made pro eo as it were, usually they are only made if at least a few people show interest in it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
G'day, if there aren't relevant period task forces, generally there will be a regional or national one that will be applicable. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand that TF types can overlap, however is not the same asfocus on historic periods. Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

While I would not object to the creation of new taskforces, I am not certain if the three mentioned above would be ideal candidates.:

  • The Victorian era specifically covers the years from 1837 to 1901. It would still exclude other 19th-century conflicts. The only other task forces relevant to the century are the Napoleonic era task force (1792-1815) and American Civil War task force (1861-1865),
  • The Interwar period covers the years from 1918 to 1939, between the World Wars. Part of the warfare in the period was based on the demise and splintering of the Austria-Hungary, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire due to World War I. Leading to the creation of new states, governments, and regimes which were vying for power. World War I spin-offs.
  • The Post–Cold War era covers the years from 1991 to the present. The beginning of the period is clear. When and if it has ended is ill-defined.
  • The period of the 20th century not covered by the proposal are the years 1901 from 1914, from the end of the Victorian era to the beginning of World War I. Should there be a task force about the 20th century, or just the Edwardian era? Dimadick (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Determined editor at it again at U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands[edit]

Longstanding editors may remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat, about a enormous and incoherent article created by a very determined editor who wanted everything in 'his' article to remain exactly the way he saw fit - basically had no idea about WP:OWN. I've been attempting to reason with this editor, Johnvr4, at User talk:Mark Arsten. Seemingly one of the results is that he's created the above offshoot, back into the mainspace, about nuclear weapons issues only peripherally related to Red Hat. But he is absolutely ironclad that his new article shall remain untouched, including sentences in the lead which aren't about anything that's mentioned in the body of the article. Would some uninvolved eyes please review both the text and the talkpage, please, and give some third opinions? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What to look for? 2013 was about four years ago. The material in my sandbox (originally part of the 2013 article) has been redeveloped and updated with additional sources for the last four years. I am absolutely ironclad in the belief that one needs to follow our reliable sources which the above editor has confirmed in other discussion that he did not do and did not intend to do.
What this editor has decided to bring to you is this text from the 2013 deleted article:

On January 18, 1959, an F-100 Super Sabre in ground alert configuration and armed with a nuclear air-to-air missile caught fire at an unnamed U.S pacific air base. The fire was reportedly quickly put out and there was apparently no danger to the nuclear weapon.[1] At that time, it is known that nuclear armed F-100 aircraft in the Pacific were based at Okinawa, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Thailand.[1] More than 50 years later, the specific location of this potential nuclear accident has never been disclosed by the government of United States.[2]

This new article is is where I believe the material described above should go:
U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands # Suspected nuclear weapons incidents on Okinawa (to be renamed:) U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan.
U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands is an offshoot of the 2013 deleted article Operation RED HAT in that the 2013 version of OP red hat had a section: Secrecy of WMD deployment to Okinawa (Japan):
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Johnvr4/Operation_Red_Hat&oldid=559315568#Secrecy_of_WMD_deployment_to_Okinawa
Please note that the new focused subject article, U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands # Suspected nuclear weapons incidents on Okinawa (to be renamed:) U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan, does not even once mention OP Red Hat.
A discussion on this material is here:Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan's_southern_islands#Original_research.3F_.2F_synthesis.3F_removed.2C_failure_to_WP:BRD.3F. However, the entire extent of the concern that this editor raised in discussion on the above material is (all of it) is: "Listen to the other editor, please, Johnvr4: there is no consensus to include this statement, which lacks some WP:Verifiability. Please stop flogging this dead horse. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)"
One does not have to accept my synopsis of events, please review the talk page sections of that article.
While I type here, the editor is still edit-warring[1] over other disputed content: diff, diff, diff, diff.
Yet the editor refuses to discuss any of the contested material on the articles talk page diff and we are left to "discuss" his contested in edit summaries and also here with the the editors misrepresentation to the project.
There certainly is a lot of history here since 2013-99% of which that editor left out. For a diff with a huge long list of content discussions with this editor(see link at bottom).
I at times don't (or didn't) understand the WP policy on a particular dispute (sometimes the existence of that policy), so if one exists, please point me to those policies and helpfully clarify it to me if I misapply them. The above editor has repeatedly stated his intent to separate me from draft material in my sandbox and has made numerous threats and attempts to do so. The opposing editor continues to repeatedly remove sourced content and frequently inserts gibberish into main articles[2] with arguments that are based upon utter ignorance of the subject. This is especially troublesome because this editor has stated an unwillingness to and assertions that he did not review our reliable sources in contested edits. for example, he has actually stated that he did not review any of the sources that are cited when he restarted Operation Red Hat (not even the citation that he put a retrieval date on) which I am so troubled by that I can't even put it into words.
Forcing (or enforcing) my edit text appear essentially unchanged is just a misrepresentation. Operation Red Hat was the very WP first article I developed and I really had no direction or help or idea what to do with it and it is probably full of mistakes that shouldn't be maintained. The article edits I made were also right at a time (around 2012-ish) that the subject was being redefined in highly reliable sources (my so-called "history of OR"). Some editors, and especially that one, have utterly resisted any redefinition of the subject based upon newer sources and they continue to do so. When I did ask for this editors input it was only per the request of the original deleting editor and as a courtesy. Buckshot06 among many other editors felt my draft was too large and covered too many subjects. I was asked to break up the material and move it to main space. At that point, Operation Red Hat was recreated by that editor. He states his purpose was NOT to create the very article that he already well knew I was in the process of creating since that was the ONLY reason I even contacted him. He says he just wanted a brief summary for Operation Red Hat in the main space.
So, I moved a part, US nukes in the J-islands, out of the draft into a new article: U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands and it was immediately set upon my this editor who deleted sourced content and then took to inserting falsehoods[3] or inserted unsourced content to replace it[4] into the main space and other dubious edits with dubious concerns. Of the text that I submitted into the new article, he put the entire thing into a place that I explained it would never ever fit: Japan and weapons of mass destruction. I explained that because the page he selected would cover all of the same subjects in my draft plus a ton of more VERY large controversies, it simply wont fit there as he left it and summaries are needed on that page.
While he is making the above arguments, that U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands must go here: Japan and weapons of mass destruction, simultaneously, he appears to make the suggestion that his incomplete and poorly executed or researched Operation Red Hat re-creation stub (also deleted once) does not go right here: Japan and weapons of mass destruction # U.S.chemical weapons in Japan.
I'm happy to explain any aspect needing clarification but literally no one would want to read all that discussion. The current problem between us is here: Talk:U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands and there are links to all of the other discussions there. I have repeatedly asked for RFC (3 times in discussion and here: as well as long ago in other places I've lost track of). Admin input and advice to resolve these matters and improve our content is highly welcomed! Thank you in advance, Johnvr4 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Military magazines[edit]

I've noticed Category:Military magazines; this seems horribly ambiguous for a military topic category name. Since it is concerning military, wouldn't ammunition clip, ammunition magazine, or armoury be a very likely confusion for such a name ? Category:Military periodicals or Category:Military periodical magazines would seem to make more sense -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

G'day, it might be best to use the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion process here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Usage of Succession boxes for military commanders[edit]

Is the usage of succession boxes for military commanders within MILHIST style policy? See for example Nikanor Zakhvatayev. Kges1901 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Most German WWII generals have them; sample: Erich Abraham. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
And British generals (Bernard Paget and Harold Franklyn for example), although some of their US colleagues seem to go without (Mark W. Clark doesn't have one, but Ernest J. Dawley does). Alansplodge (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Task forces for Templates and Disambiguation articles?[edit]

Should one add task force to these articles? Is "no-task-force=y" appropriate?

  • I wouldn't bother doing it at all, but if you think that it's worthwhile, no task force is fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

GA reassesment required[edit]

For the British Army- here is the original: Talk:British Army/GA2. I'm not necesarilly disputing the result, but it's unlikely- verging, in truth, on the impossible- that that represents a review of the thoroughness the page deserves. Actually, I'm amazed that it hasn't already been a GA or more for a while now. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. An article like that needs a very experienced reviewer; it's not an easy thing to write, nor to review. Just from a quick run through the sourcing doesn't look strong enough and the sources there are aren't consistently formatted. There's no way it would survive a formal reassessment in its current condition. It's in a lot better shape than it could be, but there's a lot of work to go yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Favour to ask on Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War...[edit]

I've a quick favour to ask of any naval historians out there. I'm reviewing Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War, where there has been a slow burning disagreement between several editors to the geographical scope of the article - should it focus on the events of the Atlantic Ocean, or extend more widely, for example to the Indian Ocean? This matters to my review, as it would determine if the article as it stands gives a reasonable coverage of the topic or not. I'm not a specialist in this period, and if anyone with more knowledge fancied leaving an opinion, I'd much certainly appreciate it. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm more interested in American history then Naval history in particular, but my answer would be that it does not - I can see why its causing trouble since the Anglo-French War is the broader conflict for France, and likely why France intervened at all, but we are treating it as part of the American Revolutionary War. But to answer your question, I do not think Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War gives reasonable coverage of the historical background for France becoming involved in the War, though this could be just a paragraph since there is already an article on the topic. I would suggest putting this in as a background to "France enters the theatre" Seraphimsystem (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Helping out with the favor you asked, since this is about the American Revolution, I'ved tagged the article for use of American Englsh and changed the theatre to theater and the harbours to harbors (particularly in place names). As for the main question, I think the Indian Ocean stuff is pretty remote, but some thought might be given to exapansion of action in the Caribbean. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy[edit]

Hi all. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our movement's overall goals, "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?". It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. There are further details in the related metawiki pages (FAQ, lists of other community discussions, etc). (Also, if you're interested in helping facilitate and summarize the discussions here, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, please let me know. Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Do sources need to be in English?[edit]

Can you please provide your comments at: Talk:Battle of Ap Bau Bang#RfC: Language of sources regards Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No they don't need to be In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
However, it is strongly encouraged where it is possible; as they can be easily read and checked that way. And unlike the past, many books are translated into English editions these days; also this is English Wikipedia. Kierzek (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The issue seems to be one of POV, the sources put "the other sides" version of events. Quite often such material is not published in English.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have boldly closed the RfC. Whether individual non-English sources are reliable, or of a similar or higher quality than available English sources is an appropriate discussion to be had and decided on a case-by-case basis. But whether non-English sources are categorically disqualified is not up for debate, and if it were, the appropriate places to make that case (which would surely fail) would be at WP:VP or WP:V. TimothyJosephWood 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Medieval foot armour[edit]

Please see move discussion at Talk:Sabaton In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Malcolm David Wanklyn[edit]

In the last days I tried to edit the page about Malcolm David Wanklyn because of a few incorrections that appeared there, namely:

1) that Upholder torpedoed and damaged an "Avieri-class" destroyer (which would be a Soldati-class destroyer) on the same day it sank the Italian destroyer Libeccio. Actually only Libeccio was hit (and sunk), and no other ships. Sources: Uboat.net; Aldo Cocchia, La difesa del traffico con l'Africa Settentrionale dall'1.10.1941 al 30.9.1942, Italian Navy Historical Branch, pp. 67-68; Giorgio Giorgerini, La guerra italiana sul mare. La Marina tra vittoria e sconfitta 1940-1943, p. 483 to 489.

2) that Upholder sank Italian steamer Dandolo in July 1941. Actually, she was damaged by Upholder, repaired, and sunk by torpedo bombers on 8 October 1942. Sources: Uboat.net; Rolando Notarangelo, Gian Paolo Pagano, Navi mercantili perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 141.

3) that Upholder sank an unnamed Italian submarine on 8 November 1941. Actually, this was Italian submarine Settembrini, that was not hit. Sources: Uboat.net; Luigi Castagna, Navi militari perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 55; Naval History and Heritage Command list

4) that the Italian merchant Bainsizza was sunk by Upholder in May 1941; actually, Bainsizza was not hit at all. She was sunk by aircraft on 14 October 1941. Sources: Uboat.net; Rolando Notarangelo, Gian Paolo Pagano, Navi mercantili perdute, Italian Navy Historical Branch, p. 72; Aldo Cocchia,La difesa del traffico con l'Africa Settentrionale dall'1.10.1941 al 30.9.1942, Italian Navy Historical Branch, pp. 16 to 19.

5) that Upholder (and Wanklyn) sank 128,353 tons of Axis shipping; actually, she sank 93,031 tons and damaged 33,644.

In addition to the cited books by the Italian Navy Historical Branch (Ufficio Storico della Marina Militare), I point out that Uboat.net has been deemed as a reliable source in previous discussions.

I and user Dapi89 have been discussing, or more properly, fighting on this issue since yesterday (including an edit war that got the page temporarily protected), without any result. Could someone intervene in the talk page and provide other opinions?--Olonia (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If sources disagree then the correct method of introducing the information is to contrast the sources, including both aspects that are covered in reliable sources. Changing cited information without contrasting the sources creates inconsistencies and confuses readers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Completely agree with Rupert. Compare and contrast sources that disagree. That is what we do. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I prefer to keep description and explanation separate but sometimes a discrepancy needs to be mentioned straight away, rather than held back until the Aftermath section. I find that having a "Notes {{notelist}} section" and {{efn|Mention of inconsistent sources + {{sfn}}}} in the text can help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
But what should be done in this specific case? I make an example, Bainsizza.
"According to Gray, [ref to page], the steamer Bainsizza was also hit and sunk [on 1 May 1941, together with German steamers Arcturus and Leverkusen]. According to Uboat.net, however, Bainsizza was not present and was not involved in the action. The official history written by the Italian navy mention several voyages by Bainsizza after this date [ref to "La difesa del traffico etc"] and states that the ship was sunk by British torpedo bombers on 14 October 1941 [ref to "La difesa del traffico", ref to "Navi mercantili perdute"]." --Olonia (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that I would write about Arcturus and Leverkusen in the text and put Bainsizza and the dissenting source/s in a note.

<nowrap>...the German steamers Arcturus and Leverkusen were sunk on 1 May.efn|Grey wrote in [year] that the steamer Bainsizza was also sunk but in 1961, the Italian naval official historians described several voyages by Bainsizza after 1 May and its sinking by British torpedo bombers on 14 October 1941.[3][4] In 2017, Helgason wrote that Bainsizza was not present.[5]</nowrap>

something like this. Keith-264 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Center for Defense Information (1981). "U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents: Danger in our Midst" (PDF). The Defense Monitor Vol. X, number 5. Retrieved April 13, 2013. 
  2. ^ William Burr (April 12, 2013). "Atomic Energy Act Prevents Declassification of Site of 1958 "Broken Arrow" Nuclear Weapons Accident". The National Security Archive, The Gelman Library, George Washington University. Retrieved April 13, 2013. 
  3. ^ Grey & year.
  4. ^ Lupinacci & Cocchia 1961.
  5. ^ Helgason 2017.
Keith-264 (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, thanks. Now, could Dapi89 intervene here, or could somebody intervene on the Wanklyn talk page, so that an agreement could be reached. It would also be useful if anybody who has applied for a Wikipedia:Miramar account could check that Index about the fates of Dandolo and Bainsizza. --Olonia (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Ping Dapi89 --NeilN talk to me 05:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
This way? @Dapi89: see above. Olonia (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Ernest Hemingway covert WWII work (MilHist interest)[edit]

There is a RFC discussion about Ernest Hemingway's recruitment by the Office of Strategic Services, Office of Naval Intelligence, NKVD, and missions during WWII as well as a related Section on sources which may be of interest to the greater project. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Categories for discussion[edit]

Several categories that are relevant to this project has been nominated for discussion. Please see:

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)