Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/News/May 2011/Op-ed

Thanks and some copyediting suggestions

Thanks for writing this. It reminded me of what I've read (in passing) about World War I historiography and the difficulties facing historians trying to assess sources from different countries that were part of that conflict, and also some of the material I read on Wikisource recently in the 1922 suppplementary editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica that were about World War I (from a very British perspective, of course). One point I would dispute though is "the English speaking people come from a warlike culture that values military prowess" - can you actually cite something where that is discussed, as I'd be interested in seeing where this idea comes from.

Some minor copyediting points (some are obvious, others not, so I've left them all for the author of the article or editor of The Bugle to correct):

now corrected (original list in page history)

Hope that helps, and thanks again for writing this, and congratulations on the Kesselring article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have corrected the typos. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've replaced the list above with a link to the diff of the corrections (it feels politer that way). I wouldn't normally have posted a long list like that, but as someone who copyedits automatically I mentally noted them while reading the article. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your point about assessing sources from different cultures. Slight differences between the way that Australians and the British approach history caused me no end of headaches on my masters thesis.
- For a discussion of the warlike culture see Rosen, Blood Brothers: The Dual Origins of American Bellicosity Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you feel like reading a whole book Why Wars Happen (1998) by Jeremy Black. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the links. My current interest is trying (with not much success) to read books about how different countries internalised the aftermath of the war (WWI). Books on commemorations and memorials and how different societies, cultures and countries created their own landscapes of memory and mourning (examples are Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning and The Great War and Medieval Memory). It's more a sociology topic than a military one, but still fascinating. While I'm here, do you or anyone reading this page have good sources specifically on the historiography of the World Wars? i.e. discussing how the views of historians have changed over time? Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Grey (2003), The Last Word is the best Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

Documenting the difference in a footnote is more than a compromise; it's what we should do when reliable sources disagree. In this case, one source is more reliable than the others, because the primary sources are clear; but if you do not mention the problem (and your reasons for resolving it as you have) in a footnote, you will get a contrinual rain of corrections from well-intentioned editors who have seen the other date.

In some cases the primary sources are not decisive; there is primary evidence dating Alexander Hamilton's birth to two different years, and no birth certificate exists (and I doubt one ever existed). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]