Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The April newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Turabay dynasty • John Bullock Clark • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Unification of Germany Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Henry Biard • Johann Mickl • Battle of Saipan • Operation Barrel Roll • Fort Corcoran • T-26 • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew Peer reviews Central America under Mexican rule • Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • West Point, New York • William, Prince of Wales • Charles the Bold Good article nominees Stephen Badlam • Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar • Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • William Henry Harrison Seeley • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Adolf von Rhemen • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Christopher Hill (Royal Navy officer) • The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) • HMS Tetrarch (1917) • Battle of Meligalas • Blohm & Voss BV 40 • Japanese destroyer Take (1944) • Zeppelin-Staaken L Good article reassessments Crusading movement • Kaunas Fortress Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,017) • only work on referencing and citation (43,140) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,120) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,575) • work on structure (31,765) • only work on structure (362) • work on grammar (8,179) • only work on grammar (48) • work on supporting materials (32,672) • only work on supporting materials (1,334) • assessment (3) • assessment as lists (114) • project tags fixed (7) • assessment checklists added (11) • assessment checklists completed (26) • task forces added (308) • attention to task force coverage (680)

Mass NARA image upload

Hey guys, NARA is in the process of uploading something like 123,000 images to Commons. Right now the bot is on US Navy ships and Cherokee census cards, and if you'd like to see them as they come up (about one ship every five minutes), see [1]. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Memorials and the Battle of Lima Site 85

I am unfortunately engaged in an edit war with Canpark on the Battle of Lima Site 85 page, particularly in relation to the section US personnel missing in action at Lima Site 85. Given that this battle marked the largest ground loss of USAF personnel in the Vietnam War, many of whom remain MIA, I do not think it is unreasonable to name those missing and provide details of the extensive investigation into what happened to them. Jim Sweeney the GA assessor has suggested that this detail may breach WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but I believe that relates to entire articles and not simply a section of an article as is the case here. Canpark has also repeatedly deleted a sentence relating to a memorial erected to the USAF crewmen killed at LS85, but I would argue that it is perfectly acceptable to include details of battle memorials on the relevant battle page. I would appreciate the thoughts of other editors on these issues. Mztourist (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence mentioned above is A memorial to these and other Combat SkySpot airmen is co-located on Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, with the memorial to Operation Arc Light airmen - I believe Canpark deletes the content as it off focus and has little or nothing to do with the battle itself. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing off focus about it, the page has photos of the memorials and the type of radar that was at LS85, pretty on focus I would say! Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd have a complaint about a link to the site, but the list of MIAs is a tough one. There isn't a similar list, for example, on the MACV-SOG page (even though it certainly might merit one using the same theory, as SOG's MIA rate was very high). I understand the desire to have such a list, but I'm not sure that it's appropriate given the way other articles covering such activities are set up.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of lists of dead and missing from shipwreck articles before now. Unless it's particularly necessary to name one of the missing, I wouldn't have included them. The names seem to be over-referenced (at two per name), one ref would do for the whole sentence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Referencing is also a problem. Mztourist had previously used what appeared to be a non-academic personal account of a trip to Laos and two dead links, but dead links are hardly reliable sources, and is clearly insistent on over-referencing using pages from the Virtual Wall. I replaced the dead links with a printed source, but he seemed to be adamant to remove the efforts which I have made to improve the article's quality. I can't help but feel that what Mztourist is doing equate to vandalism. If he wants to guard his tiny patch of territory that is no problem, but at least use references properly.Canpark (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't include any "personal accounts" as Canpark suggests, that was another author, however in undoing Canpark's persistent efforts to delete the whole section it was reinstated several times. In relation to dead links, they certainly weren't dead when I put them in, they may have become so with the lapse of time or been cut up when deleted or reinstated. I have pointed out to Canpark that one of his references Chauhan is persistently incorrect and yet he continues to rely on it.Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I used the best sources which I have at my disposal, and I use them with good faith according to this rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality. I do not write these articles according to your historical view. You are not in a position to judge if Sharad Chauhan is correct or not, because it and other sources were written by people who were not present at the battle, so who could say which account is correct? I will leave that final decision to the reviewer.Canpark (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not my historical view Canpark, I have shown that Chauhan is wrong on numerous, sometimes basic items, from other official US sources.Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to stay on track, shall we? I was disappointed not to see the most recent scholarship on LS 85 used in the article, but since it's not on Googlebooks I suppose that might be too much to ask. Sarcasm aside, the original question was about the MIA stuff. I still don't think it's appropriate for the article based on other precedents. But if you're using controversial historical POV it's best to preference it with some sort of comment along those lines so that any reviewer can understand that there is a controversy about some source materials.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont think it is entirely relevent to put a list of mias on the page, i dont know of a single battle page that has them listed on it. I dont believe there is a single featured article that lists them, think of how unwieldy it would be to give entire lists of dead and wounded on a single battle page. XavierGreen (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is also a severe POV issue by listing only US troops names, there were over 40 hmong and thais that are not listed nor are the vietnamese casualties.XavierGreen (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree on this point. The memorial makes the live of non-American personnel seem worthless, even though many of them died to defend the American installation.Canpark (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of a section on MIAS is relevant as it is an important element of the battle and will be of interest for readers specifically interested in MIA issues. Just because no information is available about the 40+ Hmongs or the 1 NVA killed doesn't mean that we should then just delete the entire section on US MIAs as being POV. Mztourist (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that LS85 is somehow special in this regard. The issue of MIAs is just as important with MACV-SOG (if not arguably more so based on the nature of their operations), yet there's no listing of their MIAs on that page. Maybe setting up a page that lists all US MIAs from Vietnam might be a possibility (I didn't turn one up with a quick search, but I stress that it was a QUICK search). I understand the desire to recognize these personnel, but at the same time it doesn't seem to fit with the precedent set by other Vietnam articles.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't claim that the MIAs make LS85 special compared to any other battle with a lot of MIAs. Why don't you write about MACV-SOG's MIAs? it would be fascinating. The problem with MIA pages on the web is that they are often dominated by subscribers to Rambo II live POW theories, so where there is an MIA issue I think it is part of the story of the battle worth telling as per my comments below. Mztourist (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the list of MIA names from the article under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. A paragraph (maybe two at most) describing the situation as a whole, integrated into the Aftermath section, would be the best way to go, I think. I would support mentioning the memorial listing the MIAs as part of this paragraph. I have not looked at any other part of the article, and have no other views on this issue. -- saberwyn 09:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I find the recovery of remains of the Vietnam era MIAs inherently very interesting and we all contribute based on our personal interests. I am not trying to turn the LS85 page or any other page into memorials to the MIAs themselves, rather the attempts to find out what happened to the MIAs and recover their remains, which usualy involves the former belligerents working together is part of an ongoing story about the particular battle that deserves to be told Mztourist (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Saberwyn's suggestion is very sensible and in line with how we've treated similar issues in the past. If there are independently notable individuals who are among the missing it might be worth mentioning their names, but as others have said we certainly don't list everyone. This is one of the few situations where I think external links can be really useful in a WP article, in linking to content that doesn't really belong on site. Ultimately we must base content decisions on what's encyclopedic rather than on what "deserves to be told", however worthy that story is. EyeSerene^talk 14:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

forensic investigation is encyclopaedic Mztourist (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an answer here would be to create an article dealing with MIAs from Vietnam in general (a list, perhaps, linked back to specific battles). I understand your interest in the MIAs from LS85, Mztourist, but they really pale in number when compared to the list generated by MACV-SOG (and that article has no list). I wouldn't mind working on a separate article/list about Vietnam MIAs, but we should try to remain somewhat consistent with existing articles (which do not include such lists on the whole).Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe saberwyn's suggestion is the most appropriate, similar to Jim Sweeney's idea on the GA Review. I agree the name of the deceased should be removed, and the info on the recovery of U.S. MIA be integrated with the Aftermath section.Canpark (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness, such an article already exists: Vietnam War POW/MIA issue Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I know the general article exists (and believe I mentioned that earlier), but when looking at it I didn't see a list of MIAs of the sort that was being discussed in the LS85 article. Hence my comment specifically mentioning a list linked to battles.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I implemented saberwyn's suggestion by incorporating two paragraphs from the U.S. MIA section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lima_Site_85&oldid=442018401, but once again Mztourist reinstated the section. So I would highly appreciate a final consensus, as well as a resolution to the issue.Canpark (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

HAving compared both versions, I would say that having it as part of the aftermath is proportional (though I would move it further down within that section); a separate section seems disproportionate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It seem to me there is a consensus, but Mztourist clearly disagrees.Canpark (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Categorizing

I have a question regarding categorizing. By definition of the law governing the Iron Cross of 1939 a Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipient must also be a recipient of all preceding lower grades of the Iron Cross. Therefore categorizing a KC recipient as both KC recipient and Iron Cross recipient is redundant. Do we do both or just the higher grade? This question may also apply to other categories which supersedes a lower category. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for 1st Provisional Marine Brigade now open

The featured article candidacy for 1st Provisional Marine Brigade is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Portal on Intelligence

Hi there. A user approached #wikipedia-en-help with an idea for a portal on Intelligence. I'm going to help him run with it, and I'd like some advice.

First of all, what to call it. It's going to be larger than the scope of Portal:Espionoge (which is up for deletion, and has barely anything worth merging into this portal). It would cover intelligence agencies, secret police forces (Stasi et. al.), personnel, operations, trade tools and techniques, pretty much the whole shebang. I was thinking of Portal:Intelligence, but the name is ambiguous.

Also, if you have any ideas for content, or are willing to help get it set up, please comment here, or leave me a message at my talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It seem's like WP:Intelligence is pretty much dead as well. Even though it looks better organised than the WP:Espionage does. At least I could say that I tried to get WP:Espionage up and running. I'll continue my re-write of "Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher" which is on my subpage under "Biographies". Then add it to the actual Wikipedia page when I'm satisfied. Adamdaley (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:USMC War Memorial Night.jpg

Just a headsup that File:USMC War Memorial Night.jpg has been nominated for deletion. --Kumioko (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Alister Murdoch now open

The featured article candidacy for Alister Murdoch is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) about hyphens in article titles

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Punctuation_and_ship_classes that may be of interest. Shem (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Collaboration

Hello! Just to mention an exciting collaboration project with the National Maritime Museum in London which we're now going ahead with. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM to find out more, start work, and/or help suggest ways of moving forward. :-) The Land (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is excellent news; congratulations and thanks to everyone who's helped set up the collaboration! Is there anything that we ought to be helping with in infrastructure terms (e.g. tagging and assessment, automated categorization, etc.)? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes please! Because it's the first project of this kind, I don't really know exactly how it is going to work and what kind of infrastructure and cooordination will be needed. I'm slowly starting to get my head around it. But since the MILHIST project is very good at projects, your help would be very welcome. The Land (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please let us know what you need. It might also be worth pinging the editors at WP:OMT if you haven't already. EyeSerene^talk 08:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, please let us know what you'd like to see. To get you started, I have two suggestions you might want to consider:

1. We could set up the GLAM/NMM effort as a special project (cf. WP:OMT) within MILHIST; this would involve adding a tag for affected articles within {{WPMILHIST}}, which could then be used to generate a full panoply of special project features (assessment statistics and logs, open task lists, article alerts, popularity indices, etc.).

   I'm not sure, however, whether this is the best approach; the available infrastructure is extensive, but some of it might not be useful in the context of what you're doing. In your view, is the project going to be limited to uploading material from the NMM, or is the intent to continue beyond the original uploads and work on the affected articles further?

2. As a more limited alternative to the first approach, we could add a tag to {{WPMILHIST}} (giving you access to assessment statistics and such, which could then be used—or not—at your own discretion) without turning the NMM collaboration into a full special project or setting up any of the other infrastructure.

   I think this approach would be more sensible if the intent is merely to track the articles as material is uploaded; it's probably not ideal if you are intending to work on them in the longer term.

Do either of those sound like something you'd be interested in? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tonnage question

If a ship is described as "x" tons old measurement, and "y" tons new measurement in an 1880s source, would that equate to BOM and GRT? Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been answered at WT:SHIPS. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Two questions

Poking around today in the military tactics category ( a suitable case for a structural rethink, if there is a category task force out there), I found myself with two questions

• Do we have an article on Battle tactics of the American Civil War? I'd expected to find it, given there is a very active group of editors that work on the ACW, but couldn't. If we don't, it would be a valuable addition to our stock.
• I discovered that the term Battle Tactics redirects to a computer game. As I understand the redirect rules, the redirect should go to the main topic Military tactics, on which appears a redirect For the computer game .... I really don't know enough about potentially conflicted redirects like this. Could someone more skilled have a look? Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Per your second point, I've changed the redirect in line with your suggestion (the appropriate guideline is at WP:R#PLA). EyeSerene^talk 08:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

More input for Northrop YF-23 A-Class review

The A-class review for Northrop YF-23 has been open since early July and should close soon. If you have further comments on it, please post them. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

New stub: Al-Nidaa Brigade (5th column pro-Qadaffi unit near Benghazi)

Fresh news, but given that, in the long run, it'd be of value to have articles on the various named-units of this war, I made a stub for this "brigade". I've noticed there are quite a few "brigades" named after various figures on both sides; has there been any talk of having a series of articles on these various units, and maybe a Category:Units and formations of the 2011 Libyan civil war? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned with the project's take on the Libyan Civil War. It is generating lots of small, news report based articles. Surely, this is just the thing that the recentism policy is supposed to guard against? This is not to say we shouldn't have something on units of the conflict but, given the amount of information we currently have and issues about its reliability in an encyclopaedic sense, ought we not have just base articles e.g. Rebel Units of the Libyan civil war, Battles of the Libyan civil war until more in depth analytical information is available?Monstrelet (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well at the moment it fails the notability guide "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and the word alleged makes it even less likely to stand up against a Prod let alone full blown AfD. Base articles, as suggested above, are the place to incorporate this sort of information. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)