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
Shortcut:

Invasion of Somalia[edit]

There are conflicting statements as to which British division(s) invaded Somalia during World War II. We will focus specifically on Mogadishu on this first part. As of now statements are spilt into three groups: solely Nigerians, a combination of West African, East African, and South African troops, and soley South Africans, the last one seems the most likely to me since they too invaded the former British Somaliland. However, I found a YouTube video (hear me out first since it's from British Pathè) that states that Australian troops where the first to enter. Anyways, the invasion of Somalia as whole seems to have been mainly South Africans and Indians. This is all quite confusing. I would greatly appreciate the help of individuals with knowledge of World War II. AcidSnow (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

After checking more sources it seems that it was South Africans that lead the invasion of Somalia and captured Mogadishu. However, I will keep this open to obtain other thoughts on this. AcidSnow (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
1st (West Africa) Infantry Brigade appear to have captured Mogadishu. The motorised Nigerian Brigade of the 1st (African) Division. Due to prevailing attitudes of the era it may have been considered more appropriate to assign such successes to white Commonwealth formations. It is interesting that the sources indicating it was an African formation eminate from neutral (at the time) U.S media. Irondome (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying USA media pre-Civil Rights Movement were more accepting of "Africans" than the Brits? Anyways, I did another check and found that documents published during and after World War II attribute the invasion of Somalia and capturing of Mogadishu to South Africans. These include the Scientia Militaria of South Africa and various book published way after World War II, such as this book detonated to World War II published by the the University of Cambridge in 2015. More importantly, Winston Churchill himself states that Mogadishu was captured by South Africans. So I believe this puts an end to this don't you think? AcidSnow (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No I dont frankly, and please do not put words into my mouth or attempt to spin things. The S/A source merely says "British and South African forces" which proves nothing. And a 1987 SADF publication is perhaps POV. I shall be checking the exact wording of your sources. You appear to be unaware of the concept of sources which are "of their time", be it ideologically or sociologically. Be more aware of the context of sources please. Irondome (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologize. I didn't mean to make it sound like you don't know what you're talking about, but rather that I don't understand what you said. You said "at the time" so I wanted to be clear. I had no desire to insult you or anything even close to that. Seeing that you were talking about something can you please explain it to me? Also what is "top spinning"? My apologize if these questions still sound like insults to you. AcidSnow (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No offence is taken, of course. But please do read my points above. due to an edit conflict I have had to refactor them. It is just that one must be aware of wider aspects to near contemporary sources. I am sure we can expore this together. Regards Irondome (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- (e/c) Be careful not to accidentally modify others' posts, as happened earlier. Hit the "Show changes" button before saving edit. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Lol checking the exact words are fine, especially since I was highlighting them for you. Anyways, what do you think of the statements of Winston Churchill and the later book? AcidSnow (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ol' Winnie eh? (I have the greatest respect for WSC btw ;)), but I like the evidence put forward by Ashley Jackson (historian) published in 2006, which states an assault by the West African Brigade secured Mog. at this point. This conversation could be fun. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
This is all quite interesting. What about the YouTube video that I showed you? It even shows Australian troops entering the city first lol. May I know that date given by Ashely Jackson? Never mind I found the date given by him. AcidSnow (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Its a British official newsreel showing Australian troops entering Mog. We ain't talking BBC News 24 here. No combat scenes of the actual taking of Mog, just what appears to be an Aussie garrison force moving up. About 15 seconds of it out of 4 minutes of footage. It proves nothing. I found the Libyan battle scenes more interesting. Note the heavily modified WW1 pieces being used by us during the bombardment scenes. 60 pdrs, 6" guns and what appear to to be 5.9" howitzers. Some 25 pdrs being used. Shows how we were reliant on elderly ordinance in 41' in Libya. As for proof that the Aussies took Mog? Not a jot. Speak tmrw. Got to be up in 4 hours. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't say that this proof of anything, rather it shows Australians entering the city. I found it interesting since they are a completely different group. My apologize for keep you up late. AcidSnow (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
But it does not disprove that African forces actually took the town, which is why I assumed you included it as a source. Don't worry about keeping me up, it's not you AcidSnow, it's just bloody wikipedia. Catch you tomorrow. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
British historian Martin Gilbert states that South Africans captured the city. Sadly, the man died relatively recently. AcidSnow (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The relevant volume of the British official history is online here. It states that the 23rd Nigerian Brigade captured Mogadishu unopposed. There were virtually no Australian forces in this theatre (other than one or two RAN warships when the Italians invaded British East Africa, and a tiny number of advisers to Ethiopia). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It was reported on March 1st, 1941 just five days after that South African troops captured the city. So this goes along with the statements made by Winston Churchill and that of Martin Gilbert. AcidSnow (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I also have a Daily Mail report from Tuesday, October 3rd 1944 that the Germans were testing atomic bombs on the Baltic coast. War Papers Fontana Press, London, 1989. ISBN 0-00-637476-X. Do not believe what you read in the contemporary press necessarily AcidSnow. Please read my tips on near contemporary sources above. Please grasp that an African formation took Mog. Irondome (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The British official history is likely to be the best source here. No weight should be placed on a one paragraph news story which appeared in a suburban Australian newspaper at the time (the paper obviously didn't have first hand reporters in this area!). Nick-D (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That's quite interesting. Anyways, it seems quite odd that historians like Martin Gilbert would "lie", especially since his work comes much after this (the book I linked to is from 2001). The same goes for Winston Churchill. I will be back shortly, if not then tomorrow if I get caught up in something else. AcidSnow (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I assume, AS, that you have read all of the Gilbert's volumes documenting Churchill's war. If you have, then you will know that Gilbert faithfully uses the source materials in the Churchill archives, without using later material? This is quite deliberate. He provides an almost minute-by minute account of what Churchill knew at the time. It was only in Burma some 2 years later that African formations began to be respected for their combat capabilities and stoicism. We are dealing with a different world. A racist world. White Africans were preferable in scoring a military success. The Jewish people were only allowed their own brigade in 1945, in Italy. History can be ugly, and our "heroes" would probably have deeply repugnant views in 2015. To study history, you must accept the warts. A painful reality. Regards Irondome (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Why should Jews be segregated off into their own separate brigade? Sounds kind of racist to me. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
On re-reading I think I misunderstood your post. If this is so I apologise. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that Irondome was referring to the British Army's Jewish Brigade Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understood that after re-reading. I must incidentally chip in and say that as somebody who has worked on African military history quite a bit I can definitely confirm that contemporary sources tend to favour "white" units over "black" ones—in my writing I try to do my best to balance for this—but at the same time I think it is important not to fall into the trap of overcompensating. Ugly and racist as it may seem to us today, the fact remains that "black" units such as the King's African Rifles, Nigerian Brigade, Rhodesian African Rifles etc were overwhelmingly trained, officered and led in the field by whites. It seems somewhat unfair to me to deny the command element any credit at all for what the units achieved. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Moyse-Bartlett's history of the King's African Rifles (Volume 2 pp 512–513) says that a platoon of C Coy 1/3 KAR was with the lead elements of the Nigerian Brigade when they reached the outskirts of Mog, but a patrol of infantry and armoured cars found the town undefended. Stapleton's Military History of Africa (Vol 1 p 212) says Mogadishu was captured by the motorised Nigerian brigade of the 11th African Division. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of the Alamo being re-evaluated[edit]

In response to recent edits and questions on the Talk:Battle of the Alamo, a framework is being laid down by Karanacs for a detailed examination of the article's current state. The end goal is to get it up to the standard of Texas Revolution. Although the article achieved FA status in 2009, several thousand edits have happened since then. — Maile (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on the start date of the Somali Civil War[edit]

A discussion has started regarding the appropriate start date of the Somali Civil War to note in the article's infobox. Wider community input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: - thankyou. Basically rebellions started in the mid 1980s but some users are advocating we use the date 1991, which does have some cites support it, but is the date the dictator fell(!!). There are also serious concerns with the views, possibly POV, of a major contributor, User:Middayexpress. An RfC was previously raised over his conduct (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress) but the final decision was that the forum was possibly not appropriate for the concern (a range of other options such as AN/I were suggested). For this reason, comments would also be very welcome at the discussion immediately below the date discussion, which tries to focus on perceived POV. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Proxy War Needs Reevaluated[edit]

The article proxy war recently was overhauled. Due to the significant changes, I think the article should be reevaluated to see if it fits into a different class now. If somebody could take care of that, I would appreciate it. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

UNPROFOR casualties[edit]

I've started a discussion at Talk: Bosnian War about the number of casualties that UNPROFOR suffered. There seems to be some disagreement between sources, with some stating almost twice the number specified on the UN website. Input would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Rejewski, cryptography[edit]

Is there anyone here who is familiar with cryptography? Marian Rejewski is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Marian Rejewski/archive1, and is close to a save, but we need help (see comments on the FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Military truck infobox[edit]

Hello, I'd like to know if there are any guidelines on which infobox (Template:Infobox weapon or Template:Infobox automobile) should be used for military trucks. I've noticed another editor asked the same question before on Template talk:Infobox weapon, without answer.—Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor[edit]

User:Citadel48 keeps disrupting Bijeljina massacre (an A-Class article) and stubbornly refuses to understand what is problematic with his/her edits . I've run out of patience and really don't feel like getting to an edit war with an inexperienced user. Someone take over from here. 23 editor (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:23 editor has very strong views on what needs and does not need to be included. With views that strong, he or she must consider self publishing or increase their level of tolerance towards alternative views on what is important and relevant. The most disappointing is the lack of basic competence resulting in challenging CNN and BBC type sources on alleged copyright infringement grounds. The user should get basic training in concepts such as fair use doctrine and should not be given editorial functions. Editorial rights are a responsibility that requires a level of maturity. tolerance and competence that seem to be lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citadel48 (talkcontribs) 19:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

ARBMAC warning given, I've also attempted to point out the issues with youtube links and other problematic edits. We'll see what transpires. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 19, 2015[edit]

A summary of one of Milhist's Featured Articles will appear on the Main Page soon. The WP:FAC nominator (a former Milhist coord) hasn't edited in years, so I'm hoping someone else will have a look. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out that anyone would like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if someone could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Good Lists[edit]

For Lists, most WikiProjects have no quality assessment classifications between List-class and FL-class. MILHIST is exceptional in that CL, BL and AL are all provided - but there is no class between BL and AL, equivalent to GA (see WP:MHA#SCALE). There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List, which would fit into that gap. Please add your comments there. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This makes so much sense it hardly warrants discussion. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

Hi everybody,

I'm looking for some editors who might willing to leave their sentiment and opinion to following case: User: Pensiveneko is engaging in mutiple webpages, with the commonly tenor to remove all the iffy things that might not fit his POV within a week. See: 1 (I will remove Bias / Opinion) 2,3, 4.

The User is name-calling serious and reputable publications of scholars into an inappropriate magnitude, because of this, I felt responsible to report his behavior to an Administrator: Nick-D See our conversation: 1

I appreciate and welcome further contributions. Thank you. Regards LikePancakes (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Mate, there is no requirement to create a log-in, but some editors are likely to take you far more seriously if you do. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I've created now this account. Going to replace my ip-sign on the talk pages. Regards, Ben. LikePancakes (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I would remind all editors that WP:RS is a top priority. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTHERE can also be factors which may well apply in this case. You all know where WP:ANI is should it be necessary to use it. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment (WWI)[edit]

Should Jabal Shammar be listed as a Central Powers co-belligerent during World War I?
See Template_talk:World_War_I_infobox#RfC_(14_April_2015). —Srnec (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the decision has already been made, but yes, I agree. The involvement of emerging nations and fracturing colonies is part of what makes this a world war.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
No, it hasn't. I want it removed, but another editor insists on inserting it. Jabal Shammar was neither an emerging nation nor a fracturing colony. Srnec (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

McFarland sources[edit]

Colleagues, I thought I might want to bring to your attention: Wikipedia:McFarland. In coordination with the Wikipedia Library, publishers McFarland are offering PDFs of up to five books per editor who signs up. There are quite a few Military History books, so I thought you all might want some free resources. :) A list of their Military History books is here. Miyagawa (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Norman Dike (revisited)[edit]

Norman Dike is primarily known as "Foxhole Norman" to viewers of the HBO series and readers of the associated books (Stephen Ambrose et. al.). While trying to broaden the article, I came upon two interesting items. In his published biography, Clancy Lyall relates that Dike did not panic, but acted erratically because he had been wounded. A blog (I know) quotes Brown University Alumni Monthly dated April 1947 as follows:

Capt. Norman S. Dike, Jr., '41 holds two Bronze Star awards for heroic action. The first followed his exploit at Uden, Holland, with the 101st Airborne Division from which between Sept. 23 and 2!i (sic), 1944, he "organized and led scattered groups of parachutists in the successful defense of an important road junction on the vital Einhoven-Arnhem Supply Route against superior and repeated attacks, while completely surrounded." Later, at Bastogne on Jan. 3, 1945, “he personally removed from an exposed position, in full enemy view, three wounded members of his company, while under intense small arms fire."

The Lyall book is in Google Books; few of the alumni monthlies are on line and I could not find April 1947. If anyone has access to the alumni pubs, please check for the paragraph in question. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Attention requested[edit]

Asking for assistance with the article 2007 Shinwar shooting. While POV issues have been raised regarding it in the past, it gives heavy weight the the allegations of war crimes by United States Marines, and gives very little weight to the court of inquiry which cleared the Marines of wrong doing. I have added links to the current Military Times series being published about the event. I hope we can collaborate to improve the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Who controlled the court of enquiry?Keith-264 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The United States Marine Corps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am bemused to see that an editor whose user page advertises themselves as a former member of the US Army is arguing that more weight should be given to internal inquiry by a branch of the US armed services. I suggest that this article would benefit from the scrutiny of editors whose idea of NPOV doesn't derive from service with the military forces of either the Taliban or the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

My past service has nothing to do with this. There are WP:BLP issues where it gives undue weight to the POV that the Marines committed War Crimes, when a Court of Inquiry found that they did no wrong doing. And to make this about me fails to follow WP:AGF as well as can be seen as a falling under WP:CRY. Furthermore, the edit above shows that the editor may have a prejudice against those with a service history. An admin should know better.
Now back to the topic at hand. I brought this up, because IMHO the POV is heavily weighted towards a POV that brings up WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL issues. As this is about a military engagement it falls within the scope of this wikiproject, and thought more eyes on the subject would help provide a balanced POV. I am not saying that the POV that a war crime might have been committed should be expunged. What I am saying is that POV that the Marines are innocent should be given due weight, which is not what, IMHO, it is receiving now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast:, the case you make here is based on your assumption that the US Marines internal inquiry is the most important assessment. NPOV does not consist of assuming that either side's internal reviews of its actions in an armed conflict are the last word on the topic, which I why I suggest that the article would be helped by the attention of an editor whose background is not in the service of either the US Army or the Taliban.
Your edits have added references to articles in the pro-US Military Times, and noted that these articles are praised by an American Conservative website. Cherry-picking such pro-US-military sources is not an NPOV approach. Where are the Afghan perspectives on the Court of Inquiry, or the perspectives of NGOs and human rights bodies?
There are no BLP or libel issues if the various inquiries and perspectives are all reported accurately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The USMC exonerated itself? Flagrant conflict of interest=unreliable source surely?Keith-264 (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I've had a go at trying to copyedit and clean up the article as we speak, but there are quite a few sources that are dead links. I recommend efforts are made to find new sources from all angles to try to make a really NPOV account. In the meantime I have removed the categories referring to the incident as "mass murder" and a "massacre" as this seems to me libellous along the lines RightCowLeftCoast has outlined. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I have just added a few sources describing it as a massacre, so will categorise it accordingly. (I would prefer that we didn't have categories called "massacre", but so long as they exist this one seems to fit). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
So long as it is backed up by sources I will not complain. Keith: I feel I must clarify that the USMC did not exonerate itself; rather it exonerated some of its personnel. More self-serving would surely have been to condemn the accused Marines and say they had gone beyond USMC guidelines. The court actually did exactly the opposite. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
"Cherry picked"? Hardly, I have attempted to find sources relevant to the subject, and replaced dead links critical of the Marines. The Military Times series, while being in the United States, is a reliable source, and is the most in-depth source published on the subject so far this year. I have also included content critical of the board of inquiry. Therefore, to white wash my edits as being POV is erroneous at best, and shows bad faith at worse. What I saw when I brought up this article for review, was an article that was heavily skewed towards a libelous POV against the Marines. As I stated, I was not here to remove the POV that the Marines committed war crime{s), but that they should be balanced with the POV that they acted within their rules of engagement, and were exonerated by the board of inquiry. I believe that Cliftonian's edits have been helpful in achieving neutrality.
Ultimately, as this article is about actions by living individuals it should be governed by WP:BLP, and we should be cautious that the POV of this article not devolve in an WP:ATTACKPAGE.
As far as the comment regarding "American Conservative", I point towards WP:POVSOURCE. Many of the sources added by myself and other editors, including BrownHairedGirl, have an obvious POV. I included one questioning whether George W. Bush is guilty of war crimes, yet my addition of the Washington Free Beacon is singled out? Kettle black. Lets focus not on each other's edits, but on improving the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast:, WP:POVSOURCE is an essay, not a policy or guideline it does not represent a consensus. Military Times is indeed a reliable source, but it approaches topics from an American perspective, which should be acknowledged. The first part of its article is entitle "Part 1: The tragic betrayal of an elite Marine Corps commando unit", which is a long way from an NPOV perspective. The article now includes a whole para on that partisan source, with quotes from US servicemen ... but no balancing commentary on the inquiry from other sources or quotes from Afghan survivors of the episode. The use of The Washington Free Beacon was to add emphasis to the POV MT artcle, without declaring that WFB is an explicitly partisan publication with few of the characteristics of an RS.
Criticism of the sources I added is misplaced. They are not used to provide any commentary, but simply to point to the existence of an alternative title for the incident, in addition to the already well-sourced main title. If used for substantive commentary, they would of course need to be balanced.
The article is still very weak. For example, it gives very little detail of the actual findings of the Court of Inquiry, on which RightCowLeftCoast places such emphasis. The whole paragraph of denunciations of the inquiry by an American source whose stance is explicitly pro-Marines is not balanced by any critiques of the inquiry from other perspectives. It is particularly unbalanced that the article closes with a statement by participants from one side, excluding the other voice.
RCLC has not pointed to any content that was potentially libellous, and any BLP concerns apply equally to the Afghans involved in the episode. There is a dispute here between two POVs, and the current shape of this article is excessively dominated by the blatantly partisan MT article alleging "betrayal of an elite Marine Corps commando unit". That perspective is of course part of the story, but it currently has WP:UNDUE weight. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The article contains two paragraphs about the inquiry, but two paragraphs about allegations against the Marines. The one paragraph about the Channel 4 News source (775 characters), is longer than the paragraph referencing Military Times (622 characters). Furthermore, the paragraph about the inquiry itself is balanced, including the POV that oppose the inquiry's findings. No such balancing sentence(s) are in the multiple paragraphs that allege the Marines actions; rather the article takes several paragraphs (in the body) until the allegations are refuted.
Therefore the claim by BrownHairedGirl that the Military Times content is given undue weight holds no water.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This is silly. "The one paragraph about the Channel 4 News source (775 characters)" actually refers to Channel 4 story reporting 3 uninvolved parties: Wikileaks, the International Bar Association and Amnesty International. The MT paragraph consists solely of self-exculpatory quotes from one of the parties to the incident .... with no balancing quotes or comments from Afghans.
Criticism of the report (rather than of the incident) consists of:
  • This report was dismissed by those who view the event as a war crime ... 13 words, with no names or quotes.
  • 104 words on the one sole critique of the report (the pro-Marines article in MT), complete with extended quotations.
That is not balance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I had wanted to expand from these two sources (the ones following "This report was dismissed by those who view the event as a war crime"), but both of them came up "server error" on my machine. Have you had any success bringing them up so we can expand from them? —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I managed to get them working. One (Kay Danes) did not even mention the court of inquiry verdict (let alone the report being dismissed by anybody), see link here; and the other (Michael Haas) said only that it "infuriat[ed] Afghanistan's human rights commission" (see link here) —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Two British Army generals[edit]

I have created stubs on 2 Scottish politicians who also appear to have been generals in the British Army. Can anyone help improve the military side of these articles?

  • Duncan Campbell (MP for Ayr Burghs) (c.  1763–1837) -- I have reliable sources which confirm his rank, but nothing on what he did in a military career which coincides with the wars with France
  • Charles Stuart (1810–1892) -- sources which confirm that he was a general, but almost nothing else. The article is barely a stub :(

Any expansion would be great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the Manual of style for Japan-related articles[edit]

Please come participate in the discussion on changing Romanization in the Japan-related manual of style. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Melee[edit]

Melee has recently been nominated of moving Talk:Melee#Requested move 9 March 2015 and then for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melee). There is now a debate over whether is appropriate to include the maintenance {{coatrack}} in the article Melee. More participation in the debate on talk:Melee might help build a consensus. Of course as nothing is ever a battle on Wikipedia no one expects there to be melee. -- PBS (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)