Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 157

Archive 150

←

Archive 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

Archive 158

Archive 159

Archive 160

American Revolutionary War discussion

The following is discussion that was mis-posted to the Military History Assessment Review Request page. PART I moved.

• - ELEVEN-CATEGORIES IMPROVED, recap & new: 1. Intro & all sections place colonies in First British Empire context throughout; - 2. Infobox balanced Am & GB leaders, cmdrs, added Sp & Fr cmdrs, distinguished among ‘belligerent-ally’ Fr, ‘co-belligerent’ Sp & Dutch, ‘combatants’ in ARW battles: Indian & German units, trim ‘losses’ detail; - 3. Boston-centered narrative trim; 4. diplomatic trim & detail to sister article; - 5. All-images ‘alt=’ descriptions; - 6. All-caption copyedits to remove Patriot bias; - 7. balanced images ADDING British leaders, British commanders, British fighting; - 8. Added Indian regular colonels (1) GB & (1) US; - 9. Added woman fighting; - 10. Added Royal Navy ships, US ships, French ships; and, - 11. Added or rewrote Harvard reference for all citations as required. - Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Just a comment; I've read through the Talk and don't really see any 'personal attacks' there. There is understandable frustration that the discussion gets sidetracked into the issue of belligerents vs combatants.

  On a broader point, still unresolved, I think the article is far too long and diffuse. There's plenty of solid information there, but not structured in a particularly helpful way - I found myself scrolling down the page looking for an entry point into what actually happened. I realise this is a large and complex topic (particularly compared to the small-scale Early Modern stuff I usually work on!) but if something like the War of the Spanish Succession can be explained concisely, this can too. You have enough information for several Good Articles there.Svejk74 (talk) 09:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Svejk74:Interesting challenge. 1. To answer your question is to identify the article structure problem. “The point of entry” to learn about warfare from the “1775” dating prior to the Declaration of Independence, is currently buried in ambiguous, small indented font: viz the first section, “Background” then into the second sub-section “Colonial response” – yuk! - - - The political can first be grouped: ‘Taxation and legislation’, colonial assembly ‘response’, ‘Political reactions’; and then, the military conflict entry point: Lexington & Concord, Siege of Boston, ‘British New York counter-offensive' ...

  2. The article scope most readily divides along two (2) topics: #1. the ‘conflict’ (a rebellion / civil war among British subjects) and #2. the ‘analysis of combatants’. (That’s ‘’Section 3’’ with six (6) subsections, and nested within ten (10) sub-subsections and sub-sub-subsections, whew!)

  Thanks. TASK #1. I'm pretty sure I can carry out the reorganization putting 'political' into 'Background' section, then all the armed unit conflict into two-three phases of the war, following RS conventions. TASK #2. I’m happy to try out an article-divide proposal at Talk.

  Reviewers: Please consider one-half the article, first-half - undertake a review for PART I: political context and military history of battle and maneuver, OR review second-half PART II: military command structure, logistics, and the social history of the armies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  My own instinct would be to take out material like the comparison of the different leaders and combatants and the detailed material on logistics, weapons, etc and either a) use it to create subsidiary articles or b) use it to beef up any existing ones.

  This gives you the opportunity to keep the main article focused on the political / economic background and the central events of the conflict without taking the reader off into a discussion of "molar-breakers", corporal punishment in the military, musket types, Howe's "crapulous mornings", etc. This stuff should be retained, just not perhaps in a place where it breaks up the main thrust of the article.

  Having said all that, that's just how I'd do it. No doubt some of our colleagues will have a different opinion, so see what they say.Svejk74 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  This seems to suggest reviewing the article in two parts. My understanding is ratings are given for the whole article - if that's correct, I don't see how you can assess it as Parts I & II. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

PART II moved.

• I don't want to get involved again, but let me clarify my concerns about this article. Disagreement is fine - no one is always right, least of all me, but I do object to writing the same thing over and over without it being read.

  (1) This is an important article; it needs to be correct. (2) It's too long for an online encyclopaedia, is confusing and I've never seen so many footnotes in one article. (3) The content of the Infobox and definition of 'Belligerents' is clearly defined by Wikipedia. The current version has added an additional category (which Wikipedia says not to do) and is different from what appears in history books; I suggested on seven different occasions a simple way to end that discussion was to provide an external source. That doesn't seem unreasonable, and has yet to happen;

  (4) The article misrepresents the treaty with France in a way that is astonishing, given it dominated American domestic politics for 20 years thereafter (and can still be seen to day); its not a small point. (5) I'm all too familiar with the US education system, but despite that, George III did not fight the war, or take strategic decisions - and his role is consistently over-stated throughout.

  Points 3 thru 5 are based on a quick read of the first 15% of the article - I didn't go any further; in my personal opinion, they were so substantial as to call into question the reliability of the entire article, which means there will be others. I stopped the assessment because if we couldn't agree on something so basic as the Infobox, there was no point in going any further.

  I made a few revisions to show what I meant by condensing, pointed out my concerns, suggested solutions (eg find a reference), patiently restated my position six times, and suggested getting a second opinion on numerous occasions. I'm not sure what else I could reasonably do, and to then find myself accused of 'personal attacks' is immensely disappointing. These remain my issues - but I will leave it to whoever takes this on.Robinvp11 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  RE: REVIEWER ACCOUNTING. Point 5. George III’s role in the ARW article is sourced to RS: American scholars Fehrling, Maier, Syrett and British Sir George Trevelyan, Morrill in Britannica, biographer Christopher Hibbert (Royal Society of Literature), Professor Professor Cogliano (U of Edinburg). Perhaps all seven RS can be refuted by a single cite to the reviewer’s recommended amateur Kevin Phillips?

  4. The Treaty of Alliance was “conditional and defensive” to defend American trade and fight Britain until independence per (text Preamble & Art.2, Mackesy, Richard B. Morris). Other editors have suggested on ARW and related pages, that the Anglo-French treaty committed US to secret FR-SP Aranjuez treaty to fight Britain until Spain attained Gibraltar. But Aranjuez was without Congressional knowledge or consent. Were not the “colonials” competent to self-government, “independence and sovereignty” (Treaty of Alliance), or capable to engage in an international agreement in their own interest (Morris)?

  3. External sources were cited for German Auxiliary & Indian combatants formally engaging in ARW battle, using the same online journal used by the Reviewer for citations, but only AFTER a 4.5MB cut in Infobox Notes. 2. As to overall article length, all ‘background & political” sections are now adjacent, as are those for “conflict & aftermath” and “participants”. More to follow. 1. By way of introduction, the reviewer cited the (unbiased "because" American) partisan popular press amateur-historian Kevin Phillips? The Reviewer was complimented on his mastery of the concise style, then walls of words, and departure. Another Reviewer is invited to take this on. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

TECHNICAL–only REVIEW ask. Editor review has all citations and footnotes as HarvRef, with url, isbn, asin and orig-year in Bibliography. (1a) JSTOR cites, does url= suffice ? (1b) how is url-access=registration: applied there? (2) Original & reprint = same publisher reprint gets the same isbn- but – QUERY: what edition(s) does the footnote show a) original-date only b) both edition dates, or c) wp:editor-sighted edition only? – respectfully TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

ARW as civil war; 1778 US not 'great power' yet

For comparison in this AWR article on the 1778 US -- 10-years pre-Constitution, rather than the reviewer's GREAT POWER paradigm at the War of Austrian Succession, please see Spanish Civil War, not only with Republicans and Nationalists as belligerents, but also “Supported by” without contributed miliary units, and “Foreign volunteers”, without independent commands.

In a revolt or civil war, the thumbnail Infobox presents participants of wp:significance in the conflict, in this ARW case, State militias, Hessian regiments and Indian tribes had independent commands in the field actively engaged in combat.

ARW INFOBOX EXCEEDS the bar for Infobox inclusion at the Spanish Civil War, where it notes those tangential participants with no organized units at all committed in the field, never mind any independent commands under separate national flags, among the listed Germans, Italians, Portuguese; Soviets, Mexicans, French; or the Pope.

Respectfully – TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Recap article improvements

Phase I. 1. Intro & all sections place colonies in First British Empire context throughout; - 2. Infobox balanced Am & GB leaders, cmdrs, added Sp & Fr cmdrs, distinguished among ‘belligerent-ally’ Fr, ‘co-belligerent’ Sp & Dutch, ‘combatants’ in ARW battles: Indian & German units, trim ‘losses’ detail; - 3. Boston-centered narrative trim; 4. diplomatic trim & detail to sister article; - 5. All-images ‘alt=’ descriptions; - 6. All-caption copyedits to remove Patriot bias; - 7. balanced images ADDING British leaders, British commanders, British fighting; - 8. Added Indian regular colonels (1) GB & (1) US; - 9. Added woman fighting; - 10. Added Royal Navy ships, US ships, French ships; and, - 11. Added or rewrote Harvard reference for all citations as required to remove HarvRef ERROR messages.

Phase II. At Review. Editors responded to direction: 1) Infobox trimmed 4.5 MB from Infobox notes only. 2) reviewer’s 1.0 MB trim in FIRST-SECTION accepted. No further review reported at ARW Talk.

Phase III. - 1. Separated Aftermath into two new sections, Treaty of Paris and Peace of Paris to end 6-month editor conflict over ARW scope. 2. Completed all-citation and footnote review to include coding for url=, isbn=, and ref=. Editors have since made additional collegial contributions, perhaps signaling a more stable article. - Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a question about Mackensen

It's just something that bugs me, I'd look for a source that can answer, but I honestly don't even know what to type into the search bar. Why did Mackensen remain in Romania, as military governor, after December 1916? What is the logic behind wasting away one of your best generals on administrative/occupation duties in a largely subdued minor country when the Western Front was in full swing? This never quite made much sense to me... Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

US MOH article

List of living Medal of Honor recipients includes the statement (in the lead) "Three medal holders are still on active duty in the U.S. military, soldiers William D. Swenson, Thomas Payne and Matthew O. Williams of the U.S. Army". This seems like OR. Is there a way to source this? Is providing a source that each of the three is still active enough? MB 23:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say you'd also need a source stating that only three are still on active duty would be needed to. Just proving that Swenson, Payne, and Williams have the MOH and are active doesn't prove they are the only ones. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

When exactly did Austria/Prussia enter France in 1792?

In Insurrection_of_10_August_1792#Toward crisis, it says

The Brunswick Manifesto became known in Paris on 1 August; that same day and the following days the people of Paris received news that Austrian and Prussian armies had marched onto French soil.

In French Revolutionary Wars#1791–1792, it says

On 19 August 1792, the invasion by Brunswick's army commenced, with Brunswick's army easily taking the fortresses of Longwy and Verdun.

This latter date is also given in Campaigns of 1792 in the French Revolutionary Wars#August/September: Prussian-led invasion of France:

Brunswick's army crossed the French frontier on 19 August 1792

Do we have a good source which would allow us to harmonize these statements? The precise timing is important here, since the uprising in Paris happened on 10 August 1792. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Brunswick's Austro-German-Royalist force crossed the border on 19 August, the same source states that it was the Brunswick Manifesto that was key in inspiring the events of 10 August. Note that this source says Prussia declared war on France on 13 June so the citizenry may have been anticipating invasion - Dumelow (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! AxelBoldt (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I need a PDF of Richard C. Hall's book on the Balkan Wars

Or at least page 117. I badly need page 117 of this book. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If you enable email, I can send you over a screen grab of page 117. I take it that you are expecting it to be about Romanian mobilisation? Harrias ^talk 06:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't expect, I know. I used to have a saved link to a PDF of the book, but that link is dead now. Anyways, how do I enable e-mail? Edit: Nevermind, I figured it out, should be good now. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I was mostly checking that I wasn't looking at a different version or anything silly like that. Email sent. Harrias ^talk 13:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou! Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

1989 OrBats at AFD

Every 1989 military organization article was put up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle. Could other editors please comment. Thanks. noclador (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Noclador: - I'd recommend rephrasing this posting. As it is, it rather runs afoul of the neutral message part of WP:CANVAS, which isn't a great way to win support at the AFD. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't meet CANVASS. I'd also point out that any editor (admin or not) can nominate articles for deletion irrespective of whether they are involved with this project. Woody (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

rephrased. noclador (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

We should keep the Orbats, there is no reason to remove them - exactly the opposite, this is one of the rarer years for which near-complete lists of all country's Orbats exist. I could only wish for such extensive coverage of all European countries' Orbats for any other history period. It is foolish to delete - I am strongly for keeping the Orbat articles. --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Itzhak Rosenberg: please comment also on the deletion request page, as only comments there will be taken into consideration. noclador (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I wouldn't have known otherwise :) -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

While you will see that I have argued against these deletions, Noclador, this should again remind you of the necessity of proper sourcing. Your NORTHAG and CENTAG articles started out particularly vulnerable to this sort of thing. Whether Fram is right or not, the more you cite *every f***ing detail* to multiple independent reliable sources, the greater the likelihood of these articles surviving 5+ year plus the time neither of us is on the site, dead or otherwise unable to contribute. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on WP:SOLDIER #2

Given a number of recent contentious AFDs I would like to open this RFC regarding #2 of WP:SOLDIER.

WP:SOLDIER states: “In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:: … 2.Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or…

Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article, although, depending upon the circumstances, they may warrant mention within an existing article or list. In determining this, the breadth of coverage should be considered. If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article. If this information is not available, then inclusion in a parent article or list is probably the best approach rather than a stand-alone article. As with all other editorial decisions, consensus should be sought where there is uncertainty in this regard. It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. For example, Teddy Sheean, despite having only received a relatively low-level military decoration, is notable per the guidance set out in the WP:GNG due to the level of coverage he has received in reliable sources.”

The recent contentious discussions at AFD relate to low-tier, i.e. one or two star officers. See for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Thoma (general), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William R. Gruber (2nd nomination)

In my opinion and those of several other Users, WP:SOLDIER is a WP:ESSAY, not a WP:SNG, just being a low-tier flag/general/air officer isn’t inherently notable and pages should not exist for such people if they lack significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources as they do not meet WP:GNG. As was noted by User:EyeSerene in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography discussion that led to the WP:SOLDIER essay "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article."

I request comments on the following:

• 1. Is WP:SOLDIER an WP:SNG?

  No; it provides guidance to WP:BIO, which is. Harrias ^talk 08:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  No. WP:N clearly implies that it is not an SNG, because it has not been subjected to a wide RfC process like the SNGs listed in the box at the top of WP:N. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  It's a subpage of WP:BIO. It should be a SNG. We've tried getting it listed as a guideline before, but run into opposition from people who oppose MilHist articles being part of the encyclopaedia at all. (Unlike porn stars, for example.) The argument that it is "just an essay" is a straw man. We have essays that are widely cited and followed, and ones that are just soapboxes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes. Effectively it is. Consensus is very clearly to follow it as an SNG and it is so entrenched that it is listed on Wikipedia:Notability (people) as an effective SNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No, per Harrias. There are sound reasons for making sure that biography articles, military and non-military, follow the same essential requirements for notability. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No, it's a project essay. It's a rather respected essay, but it hasn't gone through the sort of widespread community approval necessary to make it a SNG. Personally, I don't believe any WikiProject should be able to create an SNG without sending it through overall community approval. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• 2. Is achieving flag, general or air officer rank inherently notable?
  • I don't work enough on these sorts of biographies to have a specific opinion here. Harrias ^talk 08:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is the wrong question, because there is nothing that makes someone "inherently notable". People are only notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. Being a flag, general or air officer means that their notability is presumed until proven otherwise, and this has been established by the project through long experience over many years. This is a very important distinction, particularly with officers from non-English-speaking countries, because, based on the sorts of reliable sources that exist in English on English-speaking flag, general or air officers, the necessary reliable sources to meet WP:N are quite likely to exist, but are difficult for English-only speakers to access. Most people who don't speak the language the specific officer spoke are very unlikely to be able to do a useful and credible WP:BEFORE check, and this often results in undesirable results at AfD which reflect a systemic bias against non-English speaking people having articles on en WP. Non-English sources are also less available on platforms like Google Books, which exacerbates the problem. I know this from my work on Yugoslav officers like the FA Milorad Petrović, but fortunately I have the necessary language skills to find them (and we have the wonderful WP:RSX team who have found hard copies of some for me). Systemic bias is one of the primary threats to en WP as a world encyclopaedia and this aspect of the guidance partially mitigates that bias. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Not per se, but certainly for English-speaking flag, general or air officers sources will almost certainly exist. Same goes for French, German, Russian... I have no reason to suppose that this would not also hold true for someone who is an expert on the subject area in question. The argument about foreign language officers is a straw man. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is (with certain exceptions, e.g. for countries with relatively small armed forces that promote many officers to senior rank for largely political reasons). Once again, consensus backs this. If every person who has sat for a few days in a national legislature is notable per WP:POLITICIAN, then I think it's reasonable to accept that anyone who has risen to a senior rank in the armed forces is notable. I should point out that this RM has come about because a number of general officers have recently been proposed for deletion at AfD (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William R. Gruber (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumley Jones, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harcharan Singh Manget, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilal Ahmed Rather, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narinder Singh Sandhu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arne Söderlund, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Thoma (general), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M. Thomas Jr., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tauqir Zia) and every one has been kept because they meet the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. WP:IDONTLIKEIT appears to have been very much in evidence in these discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • A number of them were closed as No Consensus which is not the same as Keep, hence this RFC. Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Not a delete though, is it? All had a clear majority to keep. And the vast majority of similar AfDs were closed as keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Most armies produce large numbers of generals, and projected over time this would create obvious absurdity. The United States at any one time has 886 generals and admirals. Nigeria promoted 137 officers to general in one batch. Thailand promoted 980 in 2014 alone and rarely seems to promote fewer than 800 annually - 1 in 660 of its entire army. Even the British Army recently had 141 generals. I think WP:DIRECTORY is absolutely on point here - we are producing an encyclopedia which is useful to the average user rather than a phone book of stubs on military functionaries. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Not automatically. If they commanded in combat at a flag officer rank, there is a strong likelihood of notability, but no automatic claim. The sheer number of honorary/brevet and administrative posts in some armies throughout the world speaks against automatic inclusion here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gardiner for the difference between a combat-related ranking and a purely honorary/administrative ranking. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Depends what you mean by "administrative ranking". Brevet generals often aren't notable if they were brevetted after their service had technically ended (which was very common in the American Civil War, for example). But officers who held full general officer rank but never commanded in combat are as notable as any other general. Combat command isn't the be all and end all of military notability. A general is a general. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• 3. Should pages exist for flag, general or air officers who lack WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS?

  Not if sufficient time has been given for those sources to be provided; with particular care given to subjects from non-English speaking countries. Harrias ^talk 08:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS is always the criterion, but again the opposition from people who oppose MilHist articles being part of the encyclopaedia at all. They area likely to argue that we are sourcing from military sources (because you should source articles oin basketball from books about cricket). Lately there has been efforts to call all military sources unreliable. Or the publishers of books on the subject unreliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  • As WP:SOLDIER says, there is a presumption that these people will have sufficient coverage. That is a presumption of notability, not, as a handful of editors have taken it, a presumption of non-notability if sources cannot immediately be found. We also need to remember that the internet is not the only viable source. Print sources are also valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No, per Harrias. There seems a tendency for some users to take the word "presumption" and stretch it far beyond what is reasonable. Military history is a field in which there are masses of reliable sources - possibly more than any other historical or contemporary field. And we want to bend the rules which apply across the whole project to enable a noticeably lower notability standard? —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No, per Harrias, although there should be particular care for subjects where English sources are not easily found. If there is truly a lack of coverage in multiple RS, it shouldn't have an individual page per the GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• 4. Should #2 of WP:SOLDIER be clarified to reflect the consensus on 1-3 above? Mztourist (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  WP:SOLDIER already reflects our experience over the last 15 years. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

  • Completely unnecessary. It works perfectly well as it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • No, it very obviously doesn't which is why I opened this RFC. Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Only you and a handful of other editors seem to believe this. I note that not a single relevant AfD in which you have expressed this view has resulted in a deletion. I appreciate you don't agree with WP:SOLDIER, but many of us do. An apparent majority, in fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
        • People who think WP:SOLDIER is an SNG will vote Keep if one of the 6 criteria are met without looking deeper at what SOLDIER actually says. I'm tired of your baseless assertions that I don't agree with WP:SOLDIER and don't see any "apparent majority" here supporting your view that flag officers are inherently notable without SIGCOV in multiple RS.Mztourist (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
          • I have presented the evidence for the consensus so many times that I'm not going to reiterate it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the outcome above, some clarification is absolutely needed. What does "presumed" mean? What is required to rebut that presumption, since it is logically impossible to prove that a subject is not notable. To my mind, these are the key issues that emerged from the AFD discussion.—Brigade Piron (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • If a consensus that WP:SOLDIER is not a SNG, it should be clarified to indicate that it is only a possibility of notability, not an automatic presumption of one. If consensus for this emerges, I'd like to see WP:SOLDIER clarified as a guide to determine what subjects are likely notable, not which ones are presumed to be notable. Mainly a semantic difference, though, I admit. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Mztourist: what is your brief and neutral statement? At well over 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. It's also a bad idea to encourage people to post their replies within your statement, since this leads to confusion about who has posted what. As I write this, there are no less than ten signatures from six different users before your first sig (timed at 10:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)) is given. It's no wonder that Legobot can't work out either what time the RfC started or where the statement ends. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Mztourist: Is the statement going to get fixed? If not, is the whole RFC going to be pulled? Whichever is to be done, it should be soon, because the problems at the RfC listing pages are still there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know that this is the correct place to have this discussion; it should likely be moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability or equivalent. At the very least, this has the appearance of favoring the views of military history regulars, whereas the it really needs to be a community-wide RfC, and regardless of how reasonable the arguments actually are, this will taint the outcome. I'd recommend a procedural close, and a reopening elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Mztourist (as nom) would consider moving the discussion wholesale to Wikipedia talk:Notability in that case? —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is most definitely NOT the appropriate forum for this discussion: as WP:Advice page (itself the result of community consensus further clarified by multiple ARBCOM rulings) makes clear, WikiProjects are not allowed to create their own idiosyncratic standards for content and then treat these determinations as de facto policy to be applied across any articles the members of that project perceive to be within their purview. That's just not how content guidelines are made on this project, because (among numerous other pragmatic reasons) it would lead to a chaotic mish-mash of projects trying to assert their authority over different articles, with disparate projects bickering about whose standards are to take priority. If someone wishes to propose that the idiosyncratic advice of a project be upgraded to an SNG (which does on occasion happen), then appropriate process for that can be found at WP:PROPOSAL.

As such, Mztourist, if you want this to go anywhere such that the result here has any effect over the articles you wish the standard to apply to, you should close this discussion and re-open it in a more organized fashion and in an appropriate space where it can be vetted by the community at large rather than just the regulars of this project, as per the standard process for validating guidelines: the appropriate spaces would be either Wikipedia talk:Notability or WP:VPP (and ideally advertising the discussion in the other of those two forums that you don't choose as the location for the discussion itself). The exact specifics of the wording of the new SNG can be debated at the same time as the question of promoting the standard itself, though I do suggest you take advantage of the discussion reboot to restructure the discussion in a bit of a less messy fashion. It may be worthwhile, for example, to ask if the current standard should be adopted as it currently stands and then, after the SNG page is established, debate particular changes to that standard. Or you could have a discussion with two parts: Part I: should this standard be promoted to an SNG, and Part II: Should variant A (the current version here at this project) or version B (your preferred version) constitute the wording of that SNG. You'll also want to ping anyone who has already participated here to the new discussion.

Mind you, I personally think there is way, way too much idiosyncratic quasi-WP:OR thinking that goes into our SNGs from afficianados of particular fields, and that we ought to have only an GNG/WP:RS-WP:WEIGHT standard for notability, but that's a different discussion: fact is, policy and community consensus being what it is, you are allowed to create an SNG based on subjective standards, if you get vetting for it from the wider community. But there is an established process for doing that which must be followed before an essay can be upgraded to a guideline. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Honestly, after further reflection on my part, I think Mztourist needs to close this discussion completely, and reopen it there. It's already attracted considerable attention here; simply moving it will not address the concern I raised. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• I'm happy for the discussion to be moved to a more appropriate forum and be reframed as necessary, however I'm unfamiliar with the process so if someone more experienced can do so or give me clear instructions in how to do so I'm happy to comply. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to compartmentalize the discussion as much as process by breaking it down to the following steps:

1) Remove the RfC tag here and close the discussion with a comment that you are going to re-raise the issue shortly at Wikipedia talk:Notability.

2) It seems that you would like to make some changes to the advice as it currently stands in the essay. Based on the feedback you have received above, I'm not sure if you are going to get a support consensus for that, so you might consider letting that part of the discussion go for the time being, but that's your call. If you decide you want to pursue those changes first, start another thread below about the proposed changes and see how the regulars here feel about the changes. But if there is not overwhelming support for said changes at the end of that discussion, I would again advise just leaving it be for the present time: after-all, you can always propose changes on the talk page for the SNG at some later date if it passes the WP:PROPOSAL process.

3) Once the essay is in a stable state (whether that means A) you gained consensus for your proposed changes, B) those changes were rejected, or C) you decided to defer the question of those changes until some later date in order to first focus on upgrading the advice from an essay to a guideline), follow the WP:PROPOSAL process. Ideally, this would mean opening a new RfC on Wikipedia talk:Notability, while advertising the discussion at WP:VPP, here at this WikiProject, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, and any other Wikiproject you think may have editors who would reasonably be interested in the topic (I can't think of any others that jump out, but maybe you can). You can always host the discussion at WP:VPP itself, of course, but in that case, be sure to advertise it at Wikipedia talk:Notability as well.

4) Keep the proposal simple, by keeping it focused on the narrow question of whether this essay should be promoted to an SNG/formal notability guideline. Again, you can do this either before or after you propose your changes to the wording of the advice, but it is my strong recommendation that you keep those two issues (the promotion to the status of formal policy and the proposed changes you recommend) separate, for simplicity's sake. When you do start the essay-to-guideline WP:PROPOSAL process, be open to talking about what might need to change before people can support it (that might be inevitable to gain consensus, afterall), but I wouldn't court that discussion if you can avoid it until after the the essay becomes policy--again for the sake of simplicity.

5) Whatever order you do things in, be sure to ping everyone who has commented here to any further discussions (the ones about the guideline proposal, and any about changing the wording).

I'm happy to format these discussions for you, if you like, but in any event, following the above outline will give you a consensus result where, if you succeed in convincing the community to endorse the proposal, you will have a formal policy. Just let me know if you would like me to frame the new RfC(s) and we will talk about which order you want to do things in. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise thanks, but I'm not trying to propose that WP:SOLDIER becomes an SNG, rather I'm seeking comments/clarification on whether or not WP:SOLDIER is effectively a guideline and its proper use in the context of AFDs of flag officer bios. Should I just pose the same 4 questions on Wikipedia talk:Notability? Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the answer to that question is simple, and no amount of discussion here can override it: no essay is a guideline (or "effectively a guideline") until it has gone through the WP:PROPOSAL process, been vetted by the community at large and formally promoted to a guideline/policy page. Until this happens, the essay has the WP:CONLEVEL of the lowest form of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It cannot be invoked in a discussion for any particular article as anything other than an WP:ESSAY and does not represent broad/at all binding community consensus. This is true even if the essay is found at a WikiProject and has resulted from the work of multiple (or even a large number of) editors; until it goes through the WP:PROPOSAL process and is validated by the larger community, it remains nothing but an essay and it should not be referenced in a way that makes it seem like it is a binding content rule ina local discussion on any particular argument, no matter how much support the advice has at a given WikiProject (see WP:Advice page).

You don't need to have an RfC to validate this point, as it is inherent to this community's most basic principles on community consensus and how we form our guidelines. The onus is on anyone who wants to treat this advice as a guideline to first walk it through the PROPOSAL process to transform it from an WP:Essay to a WP:Guideline. Until someone does that, nobody can reference this essay in an article talk page discussion as an SNG or a binding rule, because it is in fact neither. To help clarify the difference between a guideline and an essay, it is a similar relationship as that between binding precedent and persuasive president in common law: one is a rule that has been vetted by a relevant body and which we typically expect will be followed, and the other is just a take on the situation which a party can argue is the right way to go, but which is not required. I hope that makes sense.

As to the second part (the relationship of this advice to flag officers), this is an ok place to seek that advice (insofar as the advice is afterall just an essay at present date and those who have constructed that advice are presumably active here, if anywhere. And yes, you can seek further advice at WP:Notability, but the editors there are likely to just reiterate what I have said immediately above: insofar as the essay is just an essay, nothing in it is binding as a matter of community consensus on any particular article, so it really doesn't matter much (for purposes of local consensus discussions) what it says: you can't invoke it as a policy anyway. Therefore if you want to debate the meaning of the essay, you might as well do it with those who wrote it, but whatever conclusions you reach won't matter much in practice for actual individual content discussions unless/until this becomes more than an essay. Again, I hope that makes sense: CONLEVELS are not always the most intuitive concept on this project until one has been working with them for a long time, but nevertheless, everything I have said above is pretty well established and fundamental process on en.Wikipedia: these are the rules by which we formulate all of our more particular rules and they are pretty much the most non-negotiable standards the community has. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, it may be worthwhile for me to answer your secondary question (regarding flag officers) as if this essay were in fact an SNG, just to give you my take on whether I think that change would be allowed if WP:SOLDIER were a guideline. Because, if this essay was an SNG, I don't think the standard of allowing all flag officers to have presumed notability would be allowed. SNGs are meant to be a shortcut to establishing notability via GNG WP:verification, not a replacement of the standard that WP:RS are required. The relevant language is found at WP:SNG itself: "subject-specific notability guidelines are generally derived based on verifiable criteria due to accomplishment or recognition in that field that either in-depth, independent sourcing likely exists for that topic but may take time and effort to locate (such as print works in libraries local to the topic), or that sourcing will likely be written for the topic in the future due to the strength of accomplishment (such as winning a Nobel prize). Thus, we allow for the standalone article on the presumption that meeting the SNG criteria will guarantee the existence or creation of enough coverage to meet GNG. (emphasis added).

I think it is pretty clear that for the vast majority of flag officers, there would not be sufficient sourcing to establish their articles under GNG, and therefore no SNG can allow them as a class and as an exemption to our overriding WP:Verification standard: SNGs can only include a given rule of presumptive notability for a class of person where members of that class can be presumed to almost always be viable under GNG eventually, with enough searching for sources; no rule is allowed in an SNG that would thwart our WP:V standard (as this is a pillar policy of the project). And this rule would obviously fail that test, since the vast, vast majority of flag officers would not pass scrutiny under GNG, no matter how much time was allowed to search for sources. But again, it cannot be stressed enough that this essay is not an SNG in any event, and thus the point is largely moot. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Australia, it is indeed intrinsically true. The ADB considers all deceased automatically generals worthy of inclusion, and the NLA compiles biographical files on them. As a class sourcess are always available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a genuinely interesting fact, but still kind of beside the point for our purposes here: to the extent that fact bolsters the claim to notability of Australian flag officers generally, those biographical files can simply be used to make the GNG argument for notability directly. In a majority of cases, I'm not sure that one source would be sufficient to allow the article to survive AfD if there were no other sources, but to the extent that one automatic source does augment the case for any given officer, that case can (and should) just be made under GNG directly, without the need to involve an SNG. In any event, as a global and historical matter, most flag officers would not qualify under GNG, so (per WP:SNG as quoted above) we can't have a standard that would allow all of them to be presumed notable. Though, not to beat the dead horse, but this is an ancillary/hypothetical/academic point at best, since WP:SOLDIER has not gone through a WP:PROPOSAL process and thus is an WP:Advice page WP:ESSAY, not an SNG. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise, thank you for that detailed analysis which effectively addresses all of my questions 1-3. How then do we stop WP:SOLDIER from being misinterpreted/misrepresented at AFD? Many Users who participate in AFD discussions of flag officers just seem to think "s/he is a general/flag/air officer, therefore #2 of SOLDIER is satisfied, therefore KEEP" when clearly that is not the case and SIGCOV in multiple RS is required to satisfy WP:V.Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think Snow Rise has conducted a "detailed analysis" at all. They have made an ambit claim that "the vast, vast majority of flag officers would not pass scrutiny under GNG", which actually isn't supported by 15 years of experience of this project. In fact, the opposite is true. In my experience, as well as that of many members of this project, a large proportion of professional flag (or equivalent) officers (not the beneficiaries of spurious mass promotions in some countries' militaries) meet the GNG or are likely to meet the GNG if the appropriate amount of effort was put into looking for sources. This is particularly true if a flag officer has commanded troops on operations at that rank (with their actions and decisions documented in history books), has received a high award (first or second tier), and/or has died (and a quality obituary exists). I recently easily rescued (from Afd and PROD) three articles on Indian brigadiers, none of whom commanded troops on operations at that rank (two had been battalion commanders, and one a company commander, all three in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War), and had only received the second-tier Indian gallantry award once. If I can do that with no understanding of Hindi or access to sources in that language, it can be done for plenty of others that are being AfD'd by what I consider is an overzealous approach that lacks a proper application of WP:BEFORE or a demonstrated understanding of the sorts of sources that are available on senior military officers in different countries. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 putting Snow Rise's comment aside, how do you suggest that we stop WP:SOLDIER from being misinterpreted/misrepresented at AFD? I certainly agree that if SIGCOV in multiple RS exists then notability is established and pages should be retained, but that is not how many of these AFD discussions play out. As I said above many Users just seem to think "s/he is a general/flag/air officer, therefore #2 of SOLDIER is satisfied, therefore KEEP". How should this be addressed? Mztourist (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 I'm happy to grant that you have superior experience working with sources in this area, and thus the fact that you have a better intuitive read on the likelihood that individuals within this class will or will not generally meet GNG with enough searching. That said, the standard you advocate may be sufficient for an essay, but I doubt it would pass muster in a community discussion if we were talking about an SNG here: creating a standard of presumptive notability for a class of person requires a very high degree of certainty that not just a large number of the members of said class will pass GNG with enough time and effort, but in fact that virtually all of them would. And, also with genuine respect, I wonder if in that respect that you are falling victim to the cognitive bias of the availability heuristic, based on your recent experience in this area:

The language as it currently reads in the essay ("Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents"), pulls in vast number of officers from the world's collective militaries going back many centuries (or, depending on the reading given to that wording, perhaps back to the origin of organized human conflict). Your reputation proceeds you with me (I read a Signpost interview you gave years ago and have occasionally seen your activity on the project since, both of which left with a good impression of you as an editor), so let me ask your candid input as an amateur/quasi-professional military historian: how many potential subjects would you estimate that pulls in? Certainly a massive number of individuals, with language that broad, and even with my inferior experience in this area of the project, I just have profound doubts that that majority of such persons (let alone the overwhelming majority) would have in-depth coverage in reliable sources. And thus I have doubts this language would be permitted in an SNG.

And yes, at present it is only an essay, but if editors here have aspirations of promoting it to a notability guideline eventually, it will have to conform to those expectations. And even if not, to the extent that it apes the function of an SNG (albeit only with persuasive/non-cummunity-consensus weight), it really ought to be in step with our WP:V/"significant coverage" standards. After-all, cases such as those you reference above can still come in under GNG. The question with regard to the language in question here is whether a fast-tracking presumption of notability is reasonable for all members of the class of persons covered by that language, such that (by and large) it only enables articles about persons who would eventually be verifiable under GNG. Again, I just have doubts that said language allows only such persons: I suspect it would instead allow a large number of people verifiable under GNG and a huge number of others who are not. Which is not good enough for an SNG--or even an SNG-adjacent essay, one might argue.

I could be mistaken about that (again, I give credit to your experience in this area), but certainly the onus would be on any party wishing to promote such language to make a pretty solid case that the strong majority of such officers would be notable with enough effort, since that is a very broad assertion about a huge class, with possible implications for inundating the project with a massive number of stub-articles for non-notable subjects if that assumption is incorrect. Until that solid case is made, I think the advisable approach is to just apply GNG. And to the extent that WP:SOLDIER is going to be invoked at AfD, I think it probably makes sense to keep it consistent with actual policy in this area, in advance of that case being made. Just my two cents applying standard policy to the question until such time as I see a decently strong, evidence-based claim made for the class being inherently prone to sufficient sourcing. And not for nothing, but the point is kind of academic: even if WP:SOLDIER were a guideline and not an essay, it's rare for any article to survive AfD without some significant coverage in at least one WP:RS, whatever an SNG says--so this really comes back around to GNG regardless. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot tell whether this discussion has now been moved on to anywhere, but would like to indicate my agreement and approval of User:Mztourist's premise - "just being a low-tier flag/general/air officer isn’t inherently notable and [articles] should not exist for such people if they lack significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources as they do not meet WP:GNG." Buckshot06 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have withdrawn this RFC to allow it to be reformatted in accordance with the comments above. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

M1 helmet

The current article appears to ascribe the design to the officer at the Infantry School who did some final touches, but the design itself goes back to a variant of Model no. 5 from 1918 or so, after it was slightly defritzicated - the temple protection too closely resembled a German helmet - and given another number, which I can not recall. Bashford Dean had far more to do with this design than Harold Sydenham, and the design was kept alive, in a somewhat desultory way, between the wars. Qwirkle (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea if you are right but the key question as always is, "Do you have a source for that?" From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That question would be entirely appropriate if I were trying to stuff it willy-nilly right into the article, but instead it is here, among vasty numbers of persons with old memories and big personal libraries, and who are very familiar with the adage that success has a thousand fathers, but failure’s a bastard. Qwirkle (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

So your statement is actually a question? Perhaps along the lines of "does anyone have any sources on this"? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No. My statement is just that; it has implications which lead to questions and that is clearly one of them. By itself, it is merely an acknowledgment that someone is being wrong on the internet, and that someone is us. Qwirkle (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but it doesn't count unless you can source it. I'd suggest that you copy your original post to the article's talk page so readers can readily find it as I doubt that anyone here is knowledgeable enough to address your comment anytime soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a copy of Tin Hats to Composite Helmets: A Collector's Guide which doesn't mention the Helmet Model No. 5 but does mention a 1940 Infantry Board report.

This led me to Ordnance: Volumes 21-22 (p. 931) which has an article of June 1941 called The New Combat Helmet: Development of a Superior Head Armor for the U.S. Soldier by Col Rene R. Studler. He says that testing of a No. 5 derivative called the "5A" was abandoned in 1932 after it was found to be inferior to the M1917. The Infantry Board based their 1940 helmet on an M1917 which "was most suitable for protecting the top of the head", but was modified by removing the brim and and welding on a visor and "skirt-like extensions", while the liner and suspension system were copied from an American football helmet. The prototype was designated "TS-3" and the accompanying pictures (p. 932) show it to be very similar to the production M1. So the M1917 seems to be the daddy of the M1, national modesty prevents me from mentioning the origin of that helmet :-) Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

More about the early development in The Army Combat Forces Journal: Vol. 4 - July 1954 (p. 24) which dates the abortive tests to 1924-1926 (p. 25). Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yupp, but those are all different blind - or rather, blinkered - men’s descriptions of the elephant. Infantry magazine shows a different view from Ordnance; Hatcher from MacArthur from Dean. None of the official school publications dwell on the fact that the testing was often anachronistic -shrapnel was no longer the primary threat, fragmentation and bullets were; and that budgeting played a bigger role in the final decision than the reports explicitly indicate. Reading House documents make it entirely clear why a kludged Brodie was proposed as a starting point in the late ‘30s; conversations about replacing the helmet always returned to existing, paid for, stocks.

That said, this is getting a little deep in the weeds for here, and I’ll shut up. Qwirkle (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added an M1 helmet#Development subsection, feel free to chip in. Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

More betterer, as me old First Sergeant used to say. Thanks.

So far the earliest DTIC stuff I can find is from ‘44 or ‘45, and I don’t have good current access to any of the relevant school magazines, so I’m more chipped out than in. Qwirkle (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

All I can add is I was issued one at Duntroon in the 2000s, thankfully they were replaced by the time I graduated. Cavalryman (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC).

Battle order

G'day all! While reviewing Punic Wars, I came across a spot where it mentions Battle order (More formal battles were usually preceded by the two armies camping one to seven miles (2–12 km) apart for days or weeks; sometimes forming up in battle order each day. If either commander felt at a disadvantage, they might might march off without engaging. In such circumstances it was difficult to force a battle if the other commander was unwilling to fight. Forming up in battle order was a complicated and premeditated affair, which took several hours. Infantry were usually positioned in the centre of the battle line, with light infantry skirmishers to their front and cavalry on each flank.. It seems this is a pretty fundamental topic (not to be confused with order of battle). Is there any article on this or anywhere that can be linked to? Even wiktionary doesn't have wikt:Battle order. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• • Hmm.  Line of battle, which might be close to the intended meaning, is a naval concept, although it does hatnote to Line (formation), but that's not really the equivalent concept. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

We have a tactical formation article which is at least in the same topic area. However a Google search of the phrase "battle formation" delivers quite a lot of more directly relevant material. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Not having a Battle order article is a pretty big gap, as this is how armies organised themselves for battle from ancient times until the modern era (and even now the concept isn't totally irrelevant). Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Did Romania enter Pui in WW1?

I have this English source here, which states: "Rumanian outposts advanced even as far as Puj". But did they enter it, though? The reason this is somewhat of a big deal is that Pui was a district capital at the time. And I'm just not sure what "advanced as far as" entails, I mean is it safe to assume that they entered it? Because if they did, then the Romanian 1st Army would have entered 4 district capitals, instead of 3. Can any Romanian-language sources or otherwise clear things up? Furthermore, this Austrian post-war map shows that on 14 September the main line of the Central Powers in the region was just outside Pui, to the northwest of it. This leaves room for the possibility that said outposts did enter it. But I'd like clarification. Transylvania1916 (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This one. I made it months ago, when my approach was not as...refined, for lack of a better word, as it is today. Source said that the Romanians "advanced as far as" Pui, I simply assumed they took it. But is it the case really? Does the "advanced as far as" construction imply entering said settlement. What's intriguing - checking the map I linked above - is that there was a considerable "no man's land" of sorts between the Romanian and Central Powers main lines. And...the main line of the Central Powers is outside Pui, making it not unlikely that the Romanian outposts entered it. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• If you don't have a source with anything more specific, then simply state "advanced to Pui" or something comparable. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I have next to no knowledge on this theatre. I note that the index for your source lists it as "Puj, Rumanian advance towards, September 1916". Barrett states on page 98 that "both Germans and Austrians returned in good order to Pui (Puj), where they remained for several days unmolested by the enemy". He then says that Austrian and German reinforcements arrived and began a successful counterattack which pushed the Romanians back down the Merisor Valley. My feeling would be that the Romanians reconnoitred as far as the town but did not take it - Dumelow (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Dumelow, I thank you for engaging in this discussion with me. Now, as a side note, I did make around a dozen articles on 1916 Transylvanian battles, so if you'd like more knowledge you don't need to look too far, I'd even appreciate more feedback on my work. Now back to the matter at hand. Yes, I am very much inclined to agree with you, and will tweak the article as necessary. It really does not seem like the Romanians entered Pui at all. However, you brought up Barrett, so let's address his line: "...where they remained for several days unmolested by the enemy". I am not sure what this refers to: if after the "several days" the Central Powers launched their attack on the 14th, of if after those several days the Romanian outposts got around to "molest" them at Pui (odd choice of words on B's part). The reason I think it's the latter is that "several days" is not the best way to describe the period between 8 and 14 September, that's basically a week. However, it does describe much better the span from 8 to 12 September, when the old source says the Romanian outposts got to Pui. As a matter of fact, I can name at least 3 sources which specifically focus on 12 September as the reference point on how close the Romanians got to Hateg, without necessarily mentioning Pui. Now I know and understand that we should just go with the sources instead of speculating, but Barrett's vague wording merits a discussion. Transylvania1916 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Transylvania1916, thanks I might do some reading around. I note Barrett lists this website as one of his sources which is an account of the German 187 Infantry Regiment in this campaign. My German is not great so I am relying on Google Translate here but it recounts the withdrawal to Pui on 8 September which seems to have been unpursued. I could do with input from a German-speaker but I think the passage "Warum ein allgemeiner Rückzugsbefehl gegeben wurde, war nicht ersichtlich, zumal der Gegner auch in den nächsten Tagen nicht folgte" is something like "It is not clear why the retreat was ordered, especially as the enemy did not advance for the next few days", and probably where Barratt got it from so I think I agree with you assessment of 8-12 September. The same paragraph describes the arrival of 2nd battalion of the 189th Infantry Regiment which came into Pui by train on the 14th then walked to the front line, which suggests that Pui was safely within German lines at this time - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Dumelow Speaking of which, do you happen to have full access to Barrett's book, and would be able to mail me the PDF? I only got Google Books previews, and - even though I manage to offset the inconvenience somewhat by having multiple devices and browsers - I still have no full access, in particular to the important reference pages at the end of the book. Transylvania1916 (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Transylvania1916, alas no I am using Google Preview also. I can see 29 of the reference pages, if you email me I'll send you them over - Dumelow (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hitler's prophecy needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Hitler's prophecy; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Siege of Damascus (634)

The dates of this event was disputed at Today's OTD and where I defended it. After wading deeper and deeper into the sources, I have become less and less confident in this GA article. This Appendix #21 has an analysis of the chronology, but interpreting it is beyond my expertise. Please re-review this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Siege of Damascus (634)/1. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Manned Orbiting Laboratory needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Manned Orbiting Laboratory; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

On it. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to Who was who in Twentieth Century Romania from Eastern European Monographs?

I need the part about General Ioan Culcer. I'm pretty much overhauling his article (it's a work in progress, to be finished in at most 2 weeks), and while I can go to his Romanian version article and pick up a source from there, it would still be nice to have a proper English-language source for his place of birth. So this book appears on Google Books, but no preview is available. I hope someone owns it so we may take a look. Transylvania1916 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You might be best of asking this kind of question at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Was not aware of this, thanks! Transylvania1916 (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Copenhagen

One of the ships captured at the Battle of Copenhagen (1801) or the Battle of Copenhagen (1807) subseqently became the British merchant ship Concord, a brig which foundered in January 1869 ("Shipping News". Dundee Courier. No. 4514. Dundee. 22 January 1868.). Source states that she was captured by Nelson, but also that she was condemned by the Admiralty Prize Court in 1811, so the exact battle she was captured in is in doubt Is the identitiy of this vessel in Danish service known? Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't suppose you know the year she was built or her dimensions? The Flying Fish (originally Flyvende Fiske), a brig, was captured from the Danish Navy at the 1807 battle. Intended for service in the Royal Navy she was instead laid up at Chatham until 13 June 1811 when she was sold out of service. Her construction and other details are here. I couldn't find any other relevance to 1811 for the other brigs captured in 1807 - Dumelow (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any other details. Flyvende Fiske was built in 1789, according to Threedecks. Concord doesn't see to have been listed in contemporary Lloyd's Registers. Mjroots (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Damn. Nothing about Swedes, weeds, or Snus. Whatkinda low-class place is this? Qwirkle (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST -- Country Duplication

I was going through several articles within WP:MILHIST and several of them had country twice. What would have then twice do? I have removed one. Adamdaley (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you link an example? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll find one. Adamdaley (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is one Charles Luers Nordsiek. I know removing one of the country is easy. I just thought what would they do if both were there? Duplication? Adamdaley (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying there was two countries in the infobox or categories, or task forces in the banner on the talk page? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

On the talk page banner: {{WikiProject Military history|class=Stub |Biography=yes |US=yes |Maritime=Yes |WWI=yes |us=yes }} I don't think it makes a difference; the second one will override the first, so as long as they have the same values, it will look the same. Obviously it should be removed as duplication, but it is no biggie. Harrias ^talk 08:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• I mean in the WP:MILHIST banner. Duplicate country. As @Harrias: points how, it's not an issue to remove. I just thought that having duplication country in the WP:MILHIST could potentially make out whatever. As with others I have simply did a clean WP:MILHIST for these articles. Adamdaley (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Adam. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I feel myself compelled to dispel this misconception

I know that the overwhelming majority of you aren't versed very much at all into the 1916 Battle of Transylvania, and of those who have heard of it, the bulk of you probably think that the Romanians had numerical superiority all the way and were crushed by a numerically inferior German-led force. Well, this is quite simply a load of barnacles. True, the Romanians had a crushing superiority over the Austro-Hungarians of over 10 to 1 when the battle started. By 18 September, however, the Romanians had withdrawn whole divisions from Transylvania for their southern front, while the Central Powers poured forces into the region. By the time the 9th Army became a reality on the ground on 19 September, the Romanian numerical superiority was quite simply not a fact anymore. The Centrals had over 200,000 troops and were outnumbering the Romanians. I have the sources for what I said and I will duly write them in the campaign's article, but I just wanted to make sure this is clear to all. When Falkenhayn took charge properly, the Romanian numerical superiority was just...not a thing anymore. This is also unfair to Mackensen, because it overlooks his success in bringing Romanian attention to his front in the south. Transylvania1916 (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Most certainly. Transylvania1916 (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven With how the WW1 Transylvanian front was approached before I rolled around, I'll say. Still, if you'll check the recent contributions to that article, you will find that I've just added that paragraph at the Analysis section, with the two books in question right before my eyes. Transylvania1916 (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Consensus for the use of "Supported by" in armed conflicts' infoboxes

Is there a consensus on what determines if an actor (country, organisation, etc.) can be included as a "supporter" (i.e. Supported by:) in the infobox of a military conflict? I have seen a lot of additions lately of countries that do not support any side diplomatically or militarily (e.g. training), but a private company or companies within that country sells arms to one side. I do not think this is a helpful standard as companies can arm both sides. Is there a consensus on this already that I am not aware of? Perhaps there is already an established precedence. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Question of existing consensus aside, a good many modern demi-mercs are, in fact, an instrument of a one nation’s policy, and almost all face pressure if acting against perceived national interest. Qwirkle (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion would require at least one reliable source saying that the entity supports that side. Anything else is OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd be very much against adding private corporations into an infobox. They're usually crammed enough as it is, and trying to add them as a "supporter" of a prominent belligerent is probably just a given users way of highlighting a fact they think everybody else should know, regardless of how DUE it is. Just think of how many belligerents the Ford Motor Company has "supported" over the 20th century by selling them jeeps. Unless the corporation at hand is the "[X Empire] East India Trading Company" (because they were basically rogue countries anyway) it should probably stay out, especially if it's just a supplier of materiel doing its regular (if dirty) business. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think the number of jeeps supplied by Ford would, in fact, be near zero - some GPWs, but those were (governmental) lend-lease, some 151s, but those were (governmental) FMS.

The essence of “support” in this situation is that it it is done preferentially; an implication is that it is a subsidy. That does not describe “regular” business. (I suppose you could make a case for some of Zaharoff’s transactions, but any loss-leader teaser sales were intended not as support, but as preliminaries to larger, profitable sales to another rival state.)

One way or the other, though, anything in the infobox would be a state or a quasi-state, not a firm, so that sort of clutter isn’t an issue. Qwirkle (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Kyiv

Lots of articles moved recently. Somebody with more knowledge of the literature, may wish to check that these conform to RS, i.e. Battle of Kyiv (1941). Srnec (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Consistent naming would be nice.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Naming consistent with sources would be better still. Qwirkle (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The policy WP:CONSISTENT seems appropriate here. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Any discussion appears to break down into nationalistic sniping, with comments from anyone else unwanted. I give upNigel Ish (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Participants in World War I

I’ve recently resurrected the long neglected draft for Draft:Participants in World War I that was formerly deleted. I’m trying to get it past the draft stage, but I need some help with editing and finding valid sources for the information in the article. I know this article has been discussed here before, so I hope there is still some interest in it. Would anyone be interested in helping with the article? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Anasaitis (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest omitting the obscure colonial possessions ( Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, for instance) and have just removed the non-existent Australian occupied Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Also leave out Antarctica entirely, none of the territorial claims actually mean anything real. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Spelling of Kyiv in military history

There’s a broad conversation about using different spellings of Kyiv in article titles in certain subjects, at talk:Kyiv#Related articles. This may affect some guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for American logistics in the Northern France campaign needs attention

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review#American logistics in the Northern France campaign needs just a couple more editors to take a look at it. It's been waiting for over a month, and it's a very interesting read, please stop by and take a look! Hog Farm _Bacon 02:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Nova Scotia Highland Brigade during WW I

I've been adding scraps of information from New York Times obituaries to various articles, and I ran into something I can't figure out how to link. John Stanfield, a Canadian politician, commanded the "Nova Scotia Highland Brigade" during WW I according to the obit. Is there an article this could be linked to? The closest I can find is The Nova Scotia Highlanders (North), but they didn't get that name till much later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: - See [1]. It looks like an old name of the 12th Canadian Infantry Training Brigade, which looks like a lower-level training unit. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks. Would it make sense to pipe a link to 12th Canadian Infantry Training Brigade, do you think? I've no objection to creating a redlink but want to be sure the target is right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie: - I'm not entirely sure that the unit's actually notable. The parts of the book around what I linked indicate that the 12th Infantry Training brigade had four battalions. Two of the battalions were parceled up out of existence, and then the brigade was ended and the remaining two (the 85th Battalion (Nova Scotia Highlanders), CEF and 185th Canadian Infantry Battalion (Cape Breton Highlanders), CEF) were sent to France as separate units and seem to have been assigned to different units. Given that the 12th Canadian Infantry Training Brigade seems to have been rather short-lived, never left the drill areas of Nova Scotia as a unit, and saw its constituent units divided up into other things, I don't know that it's really notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I'll leave it unlinked. Thanks for taking a look! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with an article

I came across John Dickson Stufflebeem, and it pretty clearly needs cleanup, but most of the references are dead and I'm not really finding anything in the way of web archives. Any assistance would be very much appreciated, as I'd rather not just gut the entire thing (as I'm sure most of those sources did exist at some point). Primefac (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

I did manage to find most of the references, though some still elude me. However, it still needs a once-over from someone more familiar with this content area. Also, I'm not quite sure how best to display the awards and medals, though right now it definitely isn't in the most ideal form. Again, thanks for any assistance you might be able to offer. Primefac (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest reorganizing the article sections chronologically. At the moment we have a career summary (probably should stay where it is), a 2007 incident that resulted in his retirement, his Naval Academy football career in the early 70s, his being a Pentagon spokesperson in 2001, and his NATO command circa 2005, in that order. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Citation template question

* {{cite book | last = Wilkinson | first = Patrick | year = 1993 | editor1-last = Hinsley | editor1-first = F. H. | editor-link = Harry Hinsley | editor2-last = Stripp | editor2-first = Alan | title = Codebreakers: The Inside Story of Bletchley Park | location = Oxford | publisher = Oxford University Press | isbn = 978-0-19-280132-6 }}

** {{harvc |last=Wilkinson |first=P. |c=Italian naval ciphers |year=1993 |in1=Hinsley |in2=Stripp}}

Does anyone know what I need to change to make this work? I tried in-editor1 but no good. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove | last = Wilkinson | first = Patrick from the first since that's not relevant to citing the book, just citing the chapter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

* {{cite book | year = 1993 | editor1-last = Hinsley | editor1-first = F. H. | editor-link = Harry Hinsley | editor2-last = Stripp | editor2-first = Alan | title = Codebreakers: The Inside Story of Bletchley Park | location = Oxford | publisher = Oxford University Press | isbn = 978-0-19-280132-6 }}
** {{harvc |last=Wilkinson |first=P. |c=Italian naval ciphers |year=1993 |in1=Hinsley |in2=Stripp}}

• Hinsley, F. H.; Stripp, Alan, eds. (1993). Codebreakers: The Inside Story of Bletchley Park. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280132-6.
  • Wilkinson, P. "Italian naval ciphers". In Hinsley & Stripp (1993).

cs1|2 will use |author= or |last= for its CITEREF anchor name before it uses |editor=. If Wilkinson is the only author cited in Hinsley & Strip (1993), then {{harvc}} is not required.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting the Battle of the Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee

One Who Walks with the Stars

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• One Who Walks with the Stars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Pretty Nose

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Nose (2nd nomination) ‎ ‎

Black Coyote

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Black Coyote (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Many Horses

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Many Horses (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Wesley Charles Jacobs Jr.

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Wesley Charles Jacobs Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Minnie Hollow Wood

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Minnie Hollow Wood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Rattling Blanket Woman

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Rattling Blanket Woman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Mark Soldier Wolf

This one was kept, nomination withdrawn, but it provides context.
Massive attack (not the band) on Native American participants. Questions of sourcing and notability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This looks a lot like WP:Canvassing? Perhaps you would consider rephrasing. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Chance - Man of War, merchantman and whaler

The sailing ship Chance was wrecked at Bluff, New Zealand in 1902. Said to have been over 100 years old at the time and to have been a man of war, merchantman and whaler. Can anyone shed any light on her service as a man of war please? Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The National Library of New Zealand has a different origin https://natlib.govt.nz/records/22369898 Monstrelet (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Monstrelet. Not a warship then. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Lists of equipments

Why lists of equipments are so messy? Different tables, titles, order, redudant capitalics and other errors. Is there example of good equipment list? There are even links like [[Field gun|Field Gun]]. Eurohunter (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020 GAN Backlog drive!

-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

I have managed to calm down the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which was deteriorating, if anyone wants to check out how the page was before I arrived there. This was urgent as it was featured on the Main Page. Calming it down has cut down propaganda statements in the timeline of the military engagement, though it is still very tit-for-tat, and meant most of the relevant issues are now evident in discussions on the Talk Page. Editors with Azeri and Armenian sympathies are now disputing volunteers/mercs from Syria, Turkey, etc.; casualties; and materiel losses in the infobox rather than in the main sections; the international situation is somewhat dicey. I am looking for someone with experience to patrol the infobox re claims and counter claims. For those interested, one interesting issue is increasing use of drone warfare. Johncdraper (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

ACW MOH recipients

Per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James F. Adams, what are people's thoughts on redirecting most of the stubs on American Civil War American Civil War recipients to the list article (only in cases where there isn't enough for a stand alone article)? Full disclosure, I disagree with the consensus at this AFD, and feel the wider discussion should have been held first, but consensus is what consensus is. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That’s a redlink, Eddie891. In general terms, my experience is that pre-WWI MOH recipients struggle to meet the GNG unless they meet other criteria of SOLDIER as well. Not a hard and fast rule of course, but this is particularly true if they were not an officer and did nothing else notable in their life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. I'd tend to agree at the end of the day, though I wish we had had the discussion before the afd. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

We have to remember that, although some editors treat SOLDIER like a SNG, it is an essay (with some clear flaws), and the presumption of notability is greatly strengthened for award recipients if they also meet another of the criteria. SOLDIER should probably reflect this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support a redirect. I believe that James F. Adams AFD was correctly decided. As Peacemaker67 says WP:SOLDIER is just an essay, not an SNG and so if anyone doesn't have SIGCOV in multiple RS, they fail WP:GNG and shouldn't have a page. Mztourist (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For clarity, I don’t support redirecting all these articles. They need to be individually examined against GNG via AfD, as many of them will be notable for a combination of reasons. And there is no way a mass AfD will get consensus. And this is not a venue for such action in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree. For some of these, redirection to a list with some basic information provided is probably the best course of action, but a number of these fellows are going to have coverage in print sources or period documents, so an individual-by-individual look is needed, although some one this can be handled boldly, without taking all to AFD. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966, TimothyBlue, *Treker, Eddie891, Mztourist, Lockley, Nika2020, Northern Escapee, Wm335td, Peacemaker67, and Hog Farm: Note that this AfD is up for Deletion Review. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Leclerc tank

Why it is not under "Leclerc (tank)" like any other article would be (video game or song)? Eurohunter (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NATURALDIS, not all articles use parenthetical disambiguation. Parsecboy (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

World War 2 - template for article on occupation of particular countries

Does the project have any views on what should or should not be included on articles dealing with the occupation of particular countries by Axis or Allied forces? I'm have been involved in developing the aritcle on the Japanese occupation of Malaya and am wanting to ensure an appropriate format and level of scope. NealeFamily (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

G’day NealeFamily, it is a bit free-form in terms of format depending on the subject, but if you would like to get an idea from an FA on an occupied territory, Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories is one of mine. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Disposal of redundant "United States Hydrographic Office" page

United States Hydrographic Office is almost completely redundant with a single Talk comment of "my God.... I hardly know where to begin. This is horrible. Please get someone from the USGS, someone from NOAA's Office of Coast Survey, and someone from NIMA (formerly Defense Mapping Agency) to straighten you out...." (Though I have not gone through it to identify the "horror" missing the fact it duplicates another more accurate title is pretty horrible). The actual title of the office, U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office, redirects to Naval Oceanographic Office where most of the information on the history covers the Hydrographic Office era. This redundant and not quite accurate article needs to be checked for any updates to the larger article and become a redirect. I will take on the comparison to see if the redundant text contains any useful additions to the main if there is agreement. Views? Palmeira (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Palmeira: Follow the process at Wikipedia:Merging. I would suggest you could just be WP:BOLD and get on with merging it but given the pages have been around and separate for a long time it is probably best to see if a discussion gets any editor's attention. Personally I don't see anything "horrible" though I suspect that is because they thought they were on the Naval Oceanographic Office page (which seems like the best place for all of the information). Woody (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've put tags on the page and discussion is open on its Talk page. The major "horror" to anyone knowing the history of U.S. official hydrography is one of our "features" is never having a United States Hydrographic Office — unlike the U.K. and most other nations. The article is off base from the title on. Separate agencies grew, some died, merged and we have a number of agencies engaged in hydrography but still no single hydrographic office. The title is thus entirely misleading and then in the article the mish mash continues, even to variance of the name there. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency has responsibility for charts and publications, Naval Oceanographic Office went out of that business in 1974 when Defense Mapping Agency came into being but still does the surveys for military and in international waters. NOAA does roughly the same for civilian purposes and domestic waters. The United States Army Corps of Engineers does some for rivers. There are other bit players. Yeah, many from many and never a singly hydrographic agency though many times proposed. This particular article needs to merge or go away. If it had not been that perhaps a useful phrase or bit with a reference that could be merged I'd have simply gone for "Delete" the thing. Palmeira (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You haven't followed the process at WP:MERGEPROP. There are a number of steps to take including notifying editors, tagging both pages {{merge to}}, {{merge from}} etc) and creating a new discussion with a specific merge rationale and title. Woody (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Palmeira, some of the sources, including reports of the Secretary of the Navy, explicitly use the term "United States Hydrographic Office." Can you provide or add on the talk page a bit more of the detail about the naming of the entity? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing/broken ref, follow up

As a follow up to this discussion, I compiled a list of problematic FAs and GAs from this project that have harv-template errors.

FAs

1. Anthony Roll
2. Antiochus X Eusebes
3. Basiliscus
4. Battle of Towton
5. Battle of the Coral Sea
6. Castle
7. Corinthian War
8. Ernest Shackleton
9. Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham
10. Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi
11. Jin–Song Wars
12. Jovan Vladimir
13. Offa of Mercia
14. Seri Rambai
15. Siward, Earl of Northumbria
16. The Red Badge of Courage

GAs

1. Adolf Galland
2. Adriatic Sea
3. Agreement on Friendship and Cooperation between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia
4. Agrippina the Elder
5. Air campaign of the Uganda–Tanzania War
6. Al Jalali Fort
7. Al-Birwa
8. Albigensian Crusade
9. Alexander the Great (needs many citations imported from Macedonia (ancient kingdom))
10. Alexander W. Monroe
11. Archie McKellar
12. Assassination of Ali
13. Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow
14. Bali Strait Incident
15. Basil II
16. Battle of Besançon
17. Battle of Borgerhout
18. Battle of Fontenoy
19. Battle of Île Ronde
20. Battle of Ka-san
21. Battle of Kupres (1994)
22. Battle of Kursk
23. Battle of Kyongju
24. Battle of Long Island
25. Battle of Orthez
26. Battle of Osijek
27. Battle of Pegae
28. Battle of Tabu-dong
29. Battle of the Notch
30. Battle of Waterloo
31. Battle of Yongsan
32. Belgian Resistance
33. Bhimsen Thapa
34. Black Dahlia
35. Black September
36. Blue discharge
37. Bobbili Fort
38. Boulogne agreement
39. Capitulation of Saldanha Bay
40. Caracalla
41. Christian Streit White
42. Cipher Bureau (Poland)
43. Colross
44. Constantine VIII
45. Croatian Air Force (Independent State of Croatia)
46. Croatian War of Independence
47. Dicta Boelcke
48. Emeric, King of Hungary
49. Ernest Lucas Guest
50. First Crusade
51. Flame fougasse
52. Frank McGee (ice hockey)
53. Franklin D. Roosevelt
54. Franz Kurowski
55. German submarine U-42 (1939)
56. Hadrian
57. Heinkel He 111
58. Henry VIII
59. Hindu–German Conspiracy
60. History of cannon
61. History of the United States Navy
62. Hitler's Generals on Trial
63. HMS Brilliant (1757)
64. HMS Hermione (1782)
65. Homs
66. Humphrey Atherton
67. Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin
68. Huolongjing
69. Ilyushin Il-20 (1948)
70. Incitement to genocide
71. Indonesian National Revolution
72. Isaac Parsons (American military officer)
73. Isaac Parsons (Virginia politician)
74. IX Corps (United States)
75. James Caudy
76. Japanese ironclad Ryūjō
77. John Cunningham (RAF officer)
78. John von Neumann
79. Johnnie Johnson (RAF officer)
80. Kaloyan of Bulgaria
81. Leonid Brezhnev
82. Macau Incident (1799)
83. Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811
84. Miami Showband killings
85. Mise of Amiens
86. Mise of Lewes
87. Mithridates I of Parthia
88. Molly Brant
89. Monarch-class coastal defense ship
90. Mulan (1998 film)
91. Nigel Cullen
92. No. 4 Commando
93. Operation Barbarossa
94. Operation Cockpit
95. Operation Summer '95
96. Orkneyinga saga
97. Oswald Boelcke
98. Penshurst Airfield
99. Philip III of Navarre
100. Police Regiment Centre
101. Pons, Count of Tripoli
102. Prince Marko
103. Raid on Batavia (1806)
104. Richard Garnons Williams
105. Robert Surcouf
106. Robert White (Virginia physician)
107. Rommel myth
108. Saab JAS 39 Gripen
109. Sajmište concentration camp
110. Second Battle of Naktong Bulge
111. Siege of Damascus (1148)
112. Siege of Melos
113. Siege of Pondicherry (1793)
114. Siege of Sparta
115. SMS Prinz Eugen (1912)
116. SMS Szent István
117. SMS Tegetthoff (1912)
118. Special Air Service Regiment
119. Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia
120. Sticky bomb
121. Tang campaign against Kucha
122. Teuruarii IV
123. The Great Naktong Offensive
124. The Holocaust in Albania
125. Third Anglo-Maratha War

There may be more, but I can only easily scan from A through Tr right now because there are over 25,000 entries in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. You can check these instructions to have error messages enabled (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). If you take of of an issue, you can simply strike it from the above list. Note that there may be false positives, so if you see no error with either Svick's or Trappist the monk's scripts, consider the article fixed, and strike it from the above list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Headbomb: - What's the issue with Battle of Marais des Cygnes? I've checked, and all of the sfn/harvs are correct (the other two or three references are cite webs)? It's one of my GAs, so I'd like to have it right. I'm just not finding an issue with it, so I guess I'm overlooking something somewhere. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Hog Farm: this is one of the false positives. If you have the script installed, and you see nothing wrong with the references, then it's a false positive. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to know why it happens, it's because the Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors detection logic doesn't handle templates like {{Cite Kennedy 1998}} and {{Cite Collins 2016}} very well. Those will cause the category to think there is an error when there is not, and they need to be bypassed manually like this. The scripts are accurate however, so that's why I suggest using them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I pruned all false positives from the list. It was a quick check though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I fixed HMS Brilliant (1757) with this edit. Issue was caused by wrong year of publication being used in {{sfn}}. I've struck through the entry in the list above. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue with John Cunningham (RAF officer) is ref [72], where a book is not defined in the references section. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Cunningham, I added the book missing MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Cunningham still showing in the error category. All refs are linking correctly. Headbomb would using {{sfn}} instead of {{London Gazette}} cause the error? Mjroots (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The category is due to something from Module:Footnotes not being able to recognize that the footnote works. I don't fully understand the details, but feel free to ask at Module talk:Footnotes. The London Gazette citations account for a great deal of false positives, so it would be nice to have a solution to that. But as far as the linking to citations is concerned, everything is in the clear. There's a separate issue that using {{sfn|Gazette|35643}} gives Gazette & 35643, but that can be fixed by fixing the template to give Gazette 35643 (or similar) instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I've sorted Japanese ironclad Ryūjō. Zawed (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked into Oswald Boelcke, references are fixed, I hope MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure about Castle, the issue is refs 52 and 53 but there are no books in the biblio they link to. I'm assuming 52 is to this book. Ref 176 is also missing a book in the biblio but its not in harv ref formatting for some reason. Aza24 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ref 172 (Gardberg & Welin) could be [2]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I had a go at the Battle of Kursk, I would like a second opinion please, Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966: I think you're good. It doesn't show up in the category anymore. Aza24 (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Not being in the category will let you know you're right, but being in the category could mean either. But the best way to know is to install Svick's/Trappist the monk's script. If they don't complain, you're in the clear. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Mode marker script and other things

BTW, for those into doing citation cleanup,

• A reminder that |ref=harv is now useless and can be removed safely from all citations.
• You might also want to look into using User:BrandonXLF/CitationStyleMarker.js (instructions). This lets you know at a glance if both CS1 and CS2 styles are used in an article, so you can normalize them to either CS1 or CS2 (whichever is the dominant style). I personally use the 'both' option, which only shows up when both CS1/2 are used. This way if I see the marks, I know there's an issue.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination of Albert Kesselring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Albert Kesselring is one of the oldest unreviewed GA nominations around in total, and by far the oldest related to the project. It's been waiting for a reviewer since April. Personally, I'd review it myself, but it's a bit of a controversial article and it's a bit out of wheelhouse, so I don't feel particularly qualified to take it on. It would be nice to get someone with some WWII knowledge to take a look at this one. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

My two cents. I think most experienced reviewers are probably staying away because it isn't clear that the perceived issues that resulted in the downgrade from FA have been addressed. I certainly am. My concern is that a promotion without making substantial changes would probably just result in a community GAR initiated by one of the editors that urged its downgrading from FA, and we will end up with ongoing disruption. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If I were an WW2 expert I might give it a try, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to confidently declare if it's fixed or not. The talk page seems to indicate an a-class rating, but I don't think that's warranted under the circumstances. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The article has an A-class rating because it passed an A-class review. It was demoted from FA against consensus. Those disruptive elements just need to be blocked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your position regarding the downgrade, but I don't see there ever being a consensus for the latter, Hawkeye. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Peacemaker67 sums it up well (as usual): this is an article that seasoned reviewers don't want to touch with a barge pole, as any review is going to come under intense scrutiny. Like you Hog Farm, I don't feel like I know the subject well enough to address the perceived neutrality issues, and any review that ignores them is going to almost certainly be challenged. Harrias ^talk 07:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: The above comment [3] refers, presumably, to myself as the Kesselring FAR nominator. The use of a project talk page to agitate for sanctions is unbecoming. The next time you'd like to do that, please use ANI. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to disruptive editing. I was not "agitating" for sanctions. If the project feels they are necessary, an application will be made through through the usual channels. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: "Those disruptive elements just need to be blocked", italics in original, seems pretty clear to me. Separately, there may be a misunderstanding as to what a Wikiproject's purpose is. It's not for the "project" to determine (in a special MilHist star chamber?) if "sanctions are necessary" and then (collectively? through a delegate?) make an "application ... through the usual channels". Please do not speak for the entire project; editors, including project coordinators, speak only for themselves. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"What links here" functionality issue

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships I raised the fact that the functionality of that tool seen on every page is nullified by inclusion of templates that bring in very "unlike" pages as if: "It is pretty much as if a needle catalog calls in fields of haystacks." A specific case in ship pages is being addressed but the issue is general. An example here is Sonar. Any effort to maintain links to that page directly related to text is going to call into the list every item from three templates, one being "Leonardo da Vinci" that includes — on the third page of 500 links — Lady with an Ermine. That goes beyond haystacks into farms! The "What links here" tool found on every page is thus broken. I think there may be a "programming" way to fix that so that both function. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable and interested in the inner workings of Wikipedia than I can help address that. Palmeira (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There are minor issue with the what links here tool, but this is not one of them. These pages do indeed link to those pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is most indeed an issue. The flooding of the query tool, apparently intended for page maintenance by its grouping with others, with very remotely connected "links" makes the tool worthless for actually checking and maintaining in text links between pages. For example, the message after a move suggest checking links. Not feasable with thousands possible with several very large templates linking to the page. Yes, Lady with an Ermine is vaguely associated with SONAR as Leonardo da Vinci is way back in the history of SONAR and the painting is attributed to him. But really? There is a legitimate text link between the "Lady with an Ermine" painting and SONAR? Nope! It is a problem for any editor trying to find and maintain legitimate textual links. Palmeira (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"There is a legitimate text link between the "Lady with an Ermine" painting and SONAR? " There is, it's in the navbox. If you want to find what directly links to an article, you can search insource:/\[\[Name of article(\||\]\])/, e.g. [4] (note that this won't find links made through redirects). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh uh. Your argument is getting obtuse. One might argue "there is a link between all things" and include the universe. The tool, provided among a group of what appear to be page maintenance tools, is broken by overwhelming any ordinary editor wishing to make sure all links are up to date, particularly (as instructed) after a page move. I'd challenge you to use that at least >1,000 link result for SONAR that includes every thing related to Leonardo da Vinci to make sure links to SONAR are updated. And, no, using some obscure function you suggest vice the tool suggested for maintenance is not a solution. Palmeira (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The argument isn't obtuse. You want to know what links to Lady with an Ermine? The answer is all these pages do. They might not link in a way that you considered relevant, but they do link there. If you want to know what links to Lady with an Ermine directly, then you want a different tool than Special:WhatLinksHere. You can certainly ask for a new Special page to be made, but you want WP:VPT, not WT:MILHIST for that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The one in question fails WP:NAVBOX criteria 1, 3 and 5. SONAR and the painting most certainly are not "a single, coherent subject", would not "refer to each other, to a (any) reasonable extent" and no reasonable editor "would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections" of either SONAR or the painting. They may have some utility in linking every thing Leonardo touched or wrote about, but not each other. I am confident that if I went into SONAR and added text about "Lady with an Ermine" or "Lady with an Ermine" and began adding a paragraph about SONAR a revert would be quick. I do not think "They both relate to Leonardo da Vinci!" would be accepted as an argument. Palmeira (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Which is rather irrelevant to Special:WhatLinksHere. If I put a link to Platypus on this page, then this page links to Platypus. And Special:WhatLinksHere/Platypus will reflect that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible work-around. Comment out the template(s), preview, click on "what links here". Does that reduce the links to just those actually linked from the article in question? Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the template is in all those other pages, not the one being edited or checked for incoming links. This really is a larger problem. User:Izno observed on the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 29 discussion. that things of the size of "surviving ships" size serve no navigational purpose and fail "the critiera 1, 2, 3, or 5 in WP:NAVBOX" — certainly something that applies many more. Palmeira (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

theaerodrome.com

A discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#theaerodrome.com may interest MILHIST editors. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Bot assessment query at Josefina Guerrero

I worked on Josefina Guerrero after I failed to unwatch DYK during the MacArthur image matter; when I saw a hispanic-sounding name pop on my watchlist, I checked it for Spanish-language sources at Template:Did you know nominations/Josefina Guerrero and did some copyediting. It is a fascinating topic that could work into an interesting FA; if anyone is interested, I'm game. But I encountered, and tried to clean up, a mess that was basically a start class article appropriate for DYK. Yes, it is somewhat cleaner now, but I was surprised to see the MILHIST bot rate it as B-class when so much content is missing. I've looked at the MILHIST scheme, and can't determine how a bot can make this call; this article has tons of missing information. For example, how did she come to be in the US from the Phillipines? What became of her daughter? The broader Template:Grading_scheme states that B-class "... reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." Guerrero is now a reasonably decent article, but how can it be argued that it covers the topic and does not contain omissions, and how can a bot determine that? And is it inappropriate for me to override the bot and reduce this to C-class? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: I don't know much about the workings of the bot, but it would absolutely be OK for you to override the bot. In fact, every month the bot lists the articles that it auto-assesses as B for a pair of human eyes to double-check the assessment, and some are downgraded. See September's report, for instance. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Eddie ... that helps. I will wait a while to see if anyone has a good reason to disagree, and then downgrade it to C. But I really posted here to entice someone to bring that article to FA status :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

About the way the Bot grades these articles. Assessing whether an article reasonably covers the subject (criterion b2) is difficult. What the Bot does is assess whether the article looks like a B class article. This is done by comparing the article with a database of articles called ORES. In this case, the Bot assessed Josefina Guerrero as looking like a C class article; but I told it to set b2=no only if it is assessed as "start" or "stub" in ORES. To me the article does look like a B class article. To cite an example plucked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests: Zhambyl Tulaev, which was human-rated as B, but the Bot rated it as Start via ORES, which would have resulted in a C rating had it been bot-assessed. On the other hand, William Brown (British Army officer) was assessed as B class by the Bot (with an ORES rating of B), but was downgraded by the human check to C class. Note that all articles rated as B class are flagged for human reassessment. If people think I am setting the bar too low on coverage, I can tell the to set b2=no if it has an ORES rating of C. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Help checking the Milhistbot AutoCheck report for September

G'day all, anyone who would like to pitch in is welcome to help in checking the articles automatically assessed by Milhistbot in September at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for September. Many hands make light work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

MILHISTBOT

Is the MILHISTBOT not working? There are at least 3 articles I would like the bot to assess. Unfortunately, it hasn't been done. Adamdaley (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It was indeed stopped. I have restarted it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 - Is the bot working now? Because I have left several articles un assessed for the BOT to assess and they haven't been yet. That's why I am asking if it is working now? Adamdaley (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The assessment run only runs once a day. I checked, and it had not run today; it got a time out on login and decided to come back tomorrow. I have initiated a manual run, and it processed about 80 articles. Do you want it to run more frequently? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

How long does it run for each day? Maybe 2 times a day? Adamdaley (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It runs once a day at around 0045Z. It has instructions to do no more than 100 articles per run. Most days are much less. It takes about a minute. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we make it run once during night and once during the day? Adamdaley (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Image review needed

G'day all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United States war plans (1945–1950) needs an image review and is otherwise ready for promotion. If someone could take a look, I'm sure Hawkeye would be appreciative. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Strategic Air Command in the United Kingdom needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Strategic Air Command in the United Kingdom; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please help me identify the decorations on this lad?

Ioan Culcer

So the big flower thing with 8 petals is either the Order of Saint Stanislaus or the Order of the Black Eagle, I can't quite tell. Perhaps it's Stanislaus, and the Black Eagle is all the way across the band, it sort of looks like the badge of that order. One of the others should be the Order of the Star of Romania, but I'm not quite sure which one. The photo isn't the best either, but I hope the one to the right of the Stanislaus is clear enough to be determined, even though I can't quite pick it up. For the aforementioned three, we do have a written source that he got them. I'm not very good with identifying decorations on sight though... Transylvania1916 (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Identifying medals from a photo would probably breach WP:OR anyway. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I know, but how can you look for something, if you don't know what are you looking after? I don't intend to use whatever I can get in this section for an article per se, I'm only after some reference. And also I'm genuinely curious. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as the order of St. Stanislous is concerned, if I´m reading things correctly, only the Grand Cross (or 1st Class) had this shape and was worn that way. So if he had another class, the article currently not giving that information, that´s not it however if he had things are still unsolved. It wouldn´t be OR if it is just an identification of a medal whose recipience is properly sourced, which was said to be the case above. Meanwhile there is a better (though still partially reflective/overexposed) version of that picture of him right over here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I don't want to put a dampener on your work, but editor-identified decorations is OR (although it can be useful to help search for a text source that lists them). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It is said above that the awards are sourced by text. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Rommel's tall tales

I came across his "Infantry Attacks" book and decided to check out his own take on his company's actions during the Second Battle of the Jiu Valley, and I must say, I am highly skeptical of several of his assessments. First, he stated that he was outnumbered by the Romanians 10 to 1. Now, the reason I find this extremely hard to believe is the fact that - during the overall battle - it was the Germans outnumbering the Romanians more than 2 to 1, a fact which I made very clear in the very heading of the aforementioned article. I find it likely that he was outnumbered, but not to that extent. Then, he goes on to say that among the Romanian dead in the field there was a divisional commander. Full stop, complete bonkers. There was only one Romanian division on that sector of the front, and its commander was relieved following the battle, obviously meaning that he was very much alive. I wanted to write this paragraph as a warning. Rommel is popular and so are his writings, that's why I must caution: grain of salt, folks, grain of salt. Transylvania1916 (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It is essentially a memoir, so in my experience it is treated very carefully on en WP. For example, it isn't used as a reference even in the article about Rommel. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I just used it to reference the losses of his company during this battle, nothing else. Transylvania1916 (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to use such books for friendly losses and basic information about troop movements etc, but not enemy information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

US Navy Constellation-class frigate

For those interested in military ship classes: Talk:FFG(X)#Move to Constellation-class frigate ?. noclador (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Wilderness result

Can somebody help out at Battle of the Wilderness? People keep changing the result from 'Inconclusive' to 'Strategic Union victory', which I do not believe is supported by the sources (there is some truth but it's a partial explanation at best). The National Park Service calls it "indecisive". –CWenger (^ • @) 12:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Have commented there. Another case of trying to do too much in the infobox with the results field. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this accurate?

There is a dispute about Bangladesh Liberation War infobox. In the discussion I posted some sources to support a India-Bangladesh Joint Command victory:

• "The war ended on December 16, 1971, when Pakistan's Eastern command surrendered in Dhaka to India–Bangladesh joint command with over 93,000 Pakistani (Prisoners of War) POW (Khanna 2007; Burke 1973)." - J.L. Kaul and ‎Anupam Jha, Shifting Horizons of Public International Law: A South Asian Perspective, page 241, Springer, 2018, ISBN 9788132237242
• "On December 1 6, the Pakistan army surrendered to the Joint Command of the Indian and Bangladesh forces." - Salman M. A. Salman and Kishor Uprety, Conflict and Cooperation on South Asia's International Rivers: A Legal Perspective, page 125, World Bank Publications, 2002, ISBN 9780821353523
• "The liberation war of Bangladesh was transformed into a full - scale war between the joint forces of Bangladesh and India on the one side and the Pakistani Army on the other on 3 December 1971 . Pakistan surrendered to the joint command of Bangladesh and Indian forces on 16 December 1971" - Muinul Islam and ‎Nitai Chandra Nag, Economic Integration in South Asia: Issues and Pathways, Pearson Education India, 2010, ISBN 9788131729458
• "The liberation war reached its culmination in a full-scale conventional war between Pakistan and the joint forces of India and Bangladesh." - Samuel Totten and ‎William Spencer Parsons, Centuries of Genocide: Essays and Eyewitness Accounts, page 249, Routledge, 2013, ISBN 9780415871914
• "This followed the signing of an instrument of surrender on 16 December 1971, between Lieutenant-General AAK Niazi of the Pakistani Armed Forces and Lieutenant-General Jagjit Singh Aurora, who had served as the Commander-in-Chief of Indian and Bangladeshi forces in East Pakistan." - Tom Ruys, Olivier Corten, Alexandra Hofer, The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-based Approach, page 170, Oxford University Press, 2018, ISBN 9780198784357
• "Pakistan's Lt-General A.A.K. Niazi (Commander of Eastern Command) and his deputy, Vice-Admiral M.S. Khan signed the Instrument of Surrender to a joint command of Indian and the Mukti Bahini forces in Dhaka." - Bill K. Koul, The Exiled Pandits of Kashmir, page 254, Palgrave Macmillan, 2020, ISBN 9789811565373
• "Pakistani forces surrender to India-Bangladesh joint command. - Bangladesh Documents (Volume 2), pages 550, 688, 693, Ministry of External Affairs, India, 1971
• "After a short but brutal civil war , the West Pakistani military surrendered to a joint command of Bangladesh and Indian forces on December 16 , 1971 , and Bangladesh achieved freedom." - Karl R. DeRouen, ‎Paul Bellamy, International Security and the United States, page 85, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008, ISBN 9780275992545
• "Aurora offered security and prisoner-of-war status to all those and others who wished to be repatriated and who surrendered to the Joint Command." - Verinder Grover, Political System in Pakistan: Pakistan-India relations (Volume 7), Deep & Deep, 1995, ISBN 9788171007400
• "A Joint Command of the Indian Armed Forces and the Mukti Bahini of Bangladesh was set up on December 10 , 1971 . Swift was the joint action of the Indian Armed Forces and the Mukti Bahini from December 4 to December 16 , 1971." - S. K. Chakrabarti, The Evolution of Politics in Bangladesh: 1947-1978, page 214, Associated, 1978
• "Pakistani prisoners of war surrendered to a joint command of India and Mukti Bahini, and, therefore, Mr. Mujibur Rahman holds a veto over their release even if India wants to release them." - Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Interviews to the Press, December 20, 1971-August 13, 1973 page 10, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Directorate of Research, Reference & Publications, Government of Pakistan, 1973
• "It is contended that Pakistan forces in the Eastern sector surrendered to the Joint Command of India and Bangladesh forces." - Mehrunnisa Ali, Readings in Pakistan Foreign Policy, 1971-1978, page 79, Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN 9780195793932
• "The war had ended with the surrender of about 90,000 Pakistani soldiers in the eastern sector at Dacca on 17 December 1971 to the Joint Command of the Indian army and Bangladesh's Mukti Bahni." - Avtar Bhasin, India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds, page 224, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018, ISBN 9789386826213
• "A total of 91,596 prisoners surrendered to the joint command of India and Bangladesh." - Maj Gen Sukhwant Singh, India's Wars Since Independence The Liberation Of Bangladesh (Volume 1), page 198, Lancer Publishers, 1980, ISBN 9781935501602
• "On 16th December the Pakistani forces in the eastern sector surrendered to the joint command of the Indian Army and the Mukti Bahini in Dhaka." - P. K. Bandyopadhyay, The Bangladesh Dichotomy and Politicisation of Culture, page 19, B.R. Publishing Corporation, 2004, ISBN 9788176464253

But Azuredivay believes these citations doesn't accurately support a India-Bangladesh Joint Command victory. Is that so?

P.S. It would be highly helpful if you post your opinion ("yes" or "no" or anything) to the article talk page. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking back, this rather large list of cites and quotes are looking like nothing but a big wall of text. Apologising. It was probably not helpful at all. Please, forgive. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Just keep the discussion on the article talk page thanks, there is no need for this long list of sources when they are already listed there. The purpose of posting here should only be to draw our collective attention to the discussion, not to rehash arguments or put one side. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to second Peacemaker, keep this on the article talk page. If you want to seek other editors' views, post a neutrally-worded invitation to the discussion (and then listen to those editors who do join the discussion). Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Douglas MacArthur?

Beulah Ream Allen receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom

This image is a new Featured Picture and is in the Signpost as well as the article on Beulah Ream Allen, the woman in the image. It does not resemble General MacArthur, and the original source of the image does not identify the man. The photo dates from 1946, when MacArthur was in Japan, and Dr. Allen had returned to the United States in March 1945, according to our article on her. That Wikipedia article states that MacArthur awarded the Freedom Medal to her, citing two newspaper articles in support: a 1989 article which states that "she was awarded the Freedom Medal by General Douglas MacArthur", and a 1946 article which stated she was "awarded the Medal of Freedom by the United States Army" with no mention of MacArthur.

I don't believe Wikipedia can assert that the officer shown is MacArthur. Kablammo (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I was looking at that guy's shoulder. MacArthur was a 5-star general. The man in the picture looks to have only one star. Wonder who he is. — Maile (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. It wasn't Sutherland or Kenney.

I notified Adam on his page. I don't think the 1989 obit is adequate sourcing. Perhaps he nominated her for the medal, but it seems clear he did not physically present it to her as he was in the Orient until 1951. Kablammo (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

And this, mind you, was a “good article”. I guess that’s like “good” for coins and firearms.... Qwirkle (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty confused by what I'm looking at, but the lower part of his shoulder insignia looks like a colonel's eagle and the upper part looks kind of like a lieutenant colonel's oak leaf. Either way, that sure as heck isn't MacArthur. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not sure of the process in the US but in the Commonwealth "awarded by" can mean "recommended by", and doesn't always mean the person who physically pins the medal on. So Mac might've instigated the award but another officer presented it. What I mean is I don't necessarily see a contradiction between the reports of Mac awarding the medal and the fact that it's not Mac in the picture of the presentation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah ... now that you mention it ... in the US the Medal of Honor is awarded by Congress, but the president puts it on the honoree's neck. — Maile (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that guy is definitely a full-bird colonel. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Two conflicting sources on that, one says incorrectly that it was MacAuthor, the other points out that she was awarded the medal but not by who. There isn't a date given either, its listed officially as "19--". Assuming 1946, then we are looking at someone attached to the staff of the Sixth United States Army (under General Joseph Stilwell or George P. Hayes) or someone holding a full bird's rank in DC, but again, the sources and the image itself are damningly silent on that. Assuming these are awards her husband earned which she accepted in 1947, we may be looking for someone on staff for Mark W. Clark. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, These are not the medals she accepted for her husband. She received this medal in 1946 for her own service as a physician.[5] Her husband's medals were a) not the same (Soldier's Medal and Bronze Star Medal) and 2) were posthumously awarded in a Veteran's Day celebration in 1947.[6] SusunW (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the image source itself has no date, it is unclear to me by what method you are connecting the print sources to the image sources. That is, if I am understanding TomStar81 correctly, we don't even know which medals these are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Before we say for sure that this is the presidential medal of freedom we have got to nail the man, the place, and the date, and we have no of that...yet. We've botched this badly enough as is, so lets actually take the time to get this right before we make anymore assumptions. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As a side issue on the "four women" claim, can we do better on documenting what women did receive what medals during/after/because of World War II? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to make everything worse, I'm not convinced that's the Medal of Freedom being awarded there. The medal (picture here is red with four vertical narrow white stripes. It's hard to tell from the image (and, you know, the picture's black and white), but the light vertical stripes on the ribbon in the picture look too wide. Also, if I squint, it looks like there are two more dark stripes on either side of the white area, which doesn't match the Medal of Freedom at all and suggests that there are three colors on this ribbon. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Which is why I can't officially rule out 1947 as the date of the photo: This could be the Soldier's Medal. From an angle, the Soldier's Medal roughly matches the award in the image. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Should the article text and image captions be adjusted until this is worked out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

TomStar81, got it, thanks. And yet...File:Generaal_Spoor_ontvangt_een_Amerikaanse_onderscheiding._Walter_A._Foote,_de_Ame…,_Bestanddeelnr_10004.jpg purports to show a Medal of Freedom, and that looks similar to the one being awarded here. (so far, we've managed to misidentify the person pinning on, incorrectly identify the medal as the "presidential" medal of freedom, it might not even be the medal of freedom... boy, I hope that at least we identified her correctly in the picture...) GeneralNotability (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons admin needed

The description of the image at Commons needs to be changed. It still identifies that man as MacArthur, and that propagates to WP where the image is used. But a Commmons administrator is needed to fix that. Kablammo (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The MacArthur category also needs to be removed. Kablammo (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Kablammo, I bugged Nick on IRC, it's now removed. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Project Durova

Just about 11 years ago we took one of the these old images and restored it, and thanks to Durova we actually changed history. Literally. I still believe that the project and it's components can rise to the occasion if we do things correctly. What we need is a plan of attack.

• @Adam Cuerden: You restored the image, is there any chance we might get a higher resolution out of it?
• @SusunW: Your a member of WikiProject Women's History, is there any place you can think of me might try finding additional sources for the lady's biography article?
• @SandyGeorgia: You're one of the best content reviewers we have, is there anything that stands out to you about the article that we could expand on? Newspapers, Online resources, overseas doors we might use the net to knock on?
• @GorillaWarfare: Your userpage shows you're a software engineer with twitter access, any chance we might find a relative out there somewhere who could help us fill in some of the blanks here?
• @GeneralNotability: Your COI disclosure mentions George Mason University, Virginia, and MacAuthor was buried in Virginia. Do you think there may be a chance that the university would have information of MacAuthor's staff? If it does we can perhaps pull names and ranks and start looking faces from MacAuthor's staff.
• @Nihonjoe: You and SandyGeorgia just finished a long review of these concentration camps, as I understand it. If we could narrow down the ranking US officers in these campaigns it could help us with our mystery colonel: if he had been held in one of these camps its possible he was a recipient of medical aid from the nurse and therefore awarded the medal himself.

We can do this people, we just need to take our time and work together. How about it? Who wants to help solve a mystery? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

TomStar81, I highly doubt Mason has anything related to MacArthur...but I'm always up for a mystery. I'm going to contact the MacArthur Memorial foundation, their website lists a number of archivists for MacArthur's effects - maybe one of them recognizes our mystery colonel. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What I would offer is that usually approaching the Government about images yields results ... except ... I am not so sure that is true during COVID. I have had quite a time with an issue I am pursuing with Washington, so I am unsure if suggesting someone try to track this down at the source will yield results, but something in Washington may have better luck than I am having with phone contact. (We can guess that if they had more information, they would have included it on the record.) Perhaps there is some sort of museum somewhere that specializes in military nurses and physicians? Other than that, I would adjust for MOS:DOCTOR and look into adding information as to whether she was Mormon, which seems highly likely, and in that case, more records might be found from the church. Another approach is to look into this from the angle of the husband-- that could lead to whether the image might have been one of her husband's medals. Our review at Manzanar just tuned me in to the issues around the "concentration camp" terminology, and my knowledge of military rank is not enough for these images (other than obviously there are no general's stars on that jacket). And other than that, I can tell you that slow and steady wins the race, and Nihonjoe gets to things as soon as he is able, which is not always speedily :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I should have said Bethesda, rather than Washington D.C. for the National Library of Medicine--NLM support page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I did restore the image at full resolution offered; it may be possible to get better, but I'm not sure if this copy of the photo would bring out much more detail, although there may be other copies. I got this image from the National Library of Medicine, but I can't imagine they're the only group that would have interest in this.

I can't imagine there isn't documentation on Medal of Freedom recipients, just like Victoria Crosses. Looking that up will likely bring a host of documentation possibilities.

Finally, I can't imagine that this wasn't covered in a newspaper, which gives a third avenue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 20:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This source says her sons received their father's medals, which would make this image her medal. But it also says she received her medals from Truman, which makes the source ... as useful as the others. Also, it's a student newspaper if I am reading it right, so I am not sure we should assume either statement is correct. Her sons' names are given. And on the other hand, this source contradicts that, saying SHE received her husband's medals. [7] And then, this source says the President (presumably Truman) decorated her. So, 'tis a mess. And more attribution of statements is needed in the article ... so-and-so source says X, but other so-and-so says Y. Too many conflicting sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Technically Truman "awarded" all of the Freedom Medals, it was a presidential prerogative. I understand that some 20,000 were awarded (I could be wrong). But he didn't personally hand over all of them - that's a different meaning of the word "awarded". So Truman could have "awarded" the medal, while a handy LtC "awarded" it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• If it wouldn't be intruding, I will try and help too. Here's what I'm finding so far Who's Who of American Women (Free version here, p. 19: ALLEN, Beulah Ream, physician; b. Dingle, Ida., Jan. 26, 1897; d. William Dewine and Nora Ellen (Crockett) Ream; R.N., III. Tng. Sch. for Nurses, 1922; A.B., U. Utah, 1928; M.D., U. Cal. San Francisco, 1932; m. Henderson Wilcox Allen, Sept. 27, 1937; children—Lee, Henderson Wilcox. Intern, Children's Hosp., San Francisco, 1931–32; resident, chief resident St. Luke's Hosp., Manila, 1932-34; med. officer in charge Mary J. Johnston Hosp., Manila, 1934-35, 37-41; Japanese war prisoner, Baguio and Manila, 1941-45; pvt. practice San Leandro, Cal., 1945-47, Palo Alto and San Francisco; 1947-60 tehr., supervised family relations classes, 1951-60; Recipient Medal of Freedom, 1945. Mem. Am. Acad. Sci., Am. Acad. Gen. Practice, Alpha Epsilon Iota. Mem. Ch. of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. Club: Soroptimist., Who's who of American Women and Women of Canada, Volume 5 adds 1951-60 ; dean Coll . Nursing Brigham Young U. , 1961-65 ; gen . practice , 1965.- I can keep looking if wanted. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently her first husband was a half-bird, if this site is to be believed. One LTC Henderson Wilcox Allen, listed as KIA in 1942. She apparently remarried, according to this site, her second husband was Joseph Smith Jarvis, whose DOB is given as 1894. He could be the man in the picture, but 1946 its possible if he was drafted he may have made colonel, but the admittedly threadbare records do not show any military service. Thats why I've been able to find. @Eddie891: The more the merrier, so dive right in :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delving wayyy into OR here, but if President Truman awarded nine MOF's [8] [9], and those nine were Robert Lovett [10], George R. Harrison [11] [12], William Hammon [13], Ching-Yuen Hsiao [14], three women: Anna M. Rosenberg (sources suggest eisenhower awarded it to her?) [15], Andree de Jongh [16], Marie Louise Dissard [17] [18] (I'm concerned the CSmonitor draws on this iffy source]), then she could have been a fourth woman. The ninth person could be Stanton Griffis or Bent Faurschou Hviid or Herman Laatsman. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the last page of this, Margaret Utinsky got one in 1946. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Ignore that. Not from Truman, one of the other 22,000. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

because numerous government officials could award a MOF, there was no official record of who received the medal from government officials, other than those awarded by the president. As many as 22,000 MOFs were awarded by government officials between 1945 and 1961 [19]. Huh. Given that she is not mentioned with Truman in any context in any source, and our sources date her MOF to 1945, it's my amateur opinion that she is also one of the other 22,000 , which will make things a lot harder. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What if we assume the source saying it was awarded by MacArthur is correct, but insofar as he caused her to be given it? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 01:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m inclined to think that’s the case, with no evidence to back it up at the moment. — Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Using some caution, https://prabook.com/web/beulah_ream.allen/790318 says she's in Marquis Who's Who. I don't know how reliable that is, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 04:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Eddie891 posted that above, in green. Harrias ^talk 07:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll be darned, the MacArthur Memorial folks actually responded to my email! They said they don't recognize the officer, they think the picture was taken stateside (they're both wearing cold-weather uniforms so it likely rules out the picture being taken in the Phillipines, though they say it could have been in Japan), and they'll take a look at their archives to see if they have anything else on her. So mostly a strikeout, but still...I love it when we actually hear back. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! And over at Talk:Beulah Ream Allen, User:Rachel Helps (BYU) is digging for info as well. But it sounds like I should give up on any sort of verification of the "only four women". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The two curators I e-mailed got back to me, confirming that there isn't a single record of the Medal of Freedom recipients, and that the man in the photo is difficult to identify. Beulah Ream Allen's biography is waiting for me next time I go into the office. The biography appears to have been written by a nursing specialist (I'm not sure if she was related to Allen or not). There are some records of recipients, but they are not digitized (see the National Archives). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I checked out the biography. It is self-published, and the authors are Allen's niece and grand-niece. The biography contains transcriptions of letters and oral histories from Allen and people close to her. Reading it, I feel like the authors did a good job, but I know self-published sources are not usually considered reliable sources (however, I have used them selectively on some pages). It does mention her receiving the award, but not how (and repeats the "one of four women" statistic). However, there is a photo of her two sons receiving Lieutenant Colonel Henderson Allen's medals from General Mark Clark. Hendy is four in the photo, so it would have been in 1946. Somewhat ironically, there is a photo of Allen with Douglas MacArthur! He briefly met with her and her son Lee after his graduation from West Point in 1960. The biography has a lot more information about Allen's personal life, including her first fiance (her family disapproved of him and basically ruined their relationship), her relationship with Dr. Nance (who performed the C-section to deliver her son!) and her other experiences in the POW camp. If there is consensus that the source is okay to use for her personal life, I'm happy to add details from it to her page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

email update

I've been in email communication with a Wikipedia who wishes to remain anonymous, they have provided the following information in their own attempts to track this down:

To my eye, there is no conflicting information in the various sources as to claims about Truman or MacAruthur. It was widely touted as Truman's medal authorized in July 1945, and recipients were to be selected by the secretary of state, secretary of the navy or secretary of war. [20] Looking through clippings about the awards below, they were typically not reported as having been granted by the cabinet member, but instead by the general who proposed them. A side note, the medal did not apply to women unless their service was overseas or they were foreign. [21]

Also, it is apparent that whoever nominated them, they were typically pinned where they lived. Thus, Allen lived in San Francisco Bay at the time. What military installations were there at the time? That is where our search for "who is in the photo?" should begin. [It is established that the rank insiginia is that of Colonel, so this line has been omitted.]

The first American [22] woman to receive the medal was Anna Rosenburg on 30 October 1945. [23]

This tells us that between Rosenburg and Allen (whose award was reported 2 June, 1946) there were only 8 months, so it seems likely there won't be masses of women who received it. We also know that there was a committee researching the nominees and they did not complete their research on the first batch of potential Red Cross workers until March 1946 [24] or foreign awardees until May 1946 [25]

• Rosamond Thornton received it December 10, 1945 [26]
• Elizabeth Beeson received in February 1946 [27]
• Matilda Alston in February 1946 [28]
• Virginia Woolfolk received it March 1946 [29]
• Laura Haight received it in April 1946 [30]
• Mary E. Opp (was she dead? her mother received it) April 1946 [31]
• Thelma Day received it in April 1946 [32]
• Josephine McNamara received it in April 1946 [33]
• Minna Harrison received it in May 1946 [34]
• Beulah Allen received it in June 1946 [35]

Looks like to me, Allen was the 10th American woman to receive it, give or take, assuming that there are some newspapers that are missing from this database. I'll check on another one I have access to. As for military bases, looking here, [36] there were dozens in the Bay Area. Perhaps the California State Military Museum can assist? [37] This [38] says "Since the Medal of Freedom’s inception in 1945, U.S. presidents only bestowed 23 of these medals—President Truman awarded nine (all in 1946), President Eisenhower awarded 13, and President Kennedy awarded only one. However, because numerous government officials could award a MOF, there was no official record of who received the medal from government officials, other than those awarded by the president. As many as 22,000 MOFs were awarded by government officials between 1945 and 1961 (Wetterau 1996, 9, 11-12)."

Hope this helps.

Given this additional information, is there anywhere else we might try shaking to gain a lead on the colonel in the photograph? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

And we should delete the “only four women” claim? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Requeste to move List of wars series

• Due to the dispute we had on the Talk:List of wars: 2003–present, one reviewer has decided to make requests moves. These requests would involve every "List of wars" list into the brand new "List of conflicts" title. Since these requests moves would rename eight lists and a category in one consensus; it's better to invite other people from Milhist to have a look. Please have a look into this discussion and you are always welcome to join this discussion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Are extermination camps a type of internment?

Please see the RFC at Talk:Internment#RfC: are extermination camps a subset of concentration camps? (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Naming nameless engagements

Muwatallis II recently put a nicely written article, Action of 3 October 1624 up for review. In reviewing it for B class (It is, although review's not complete), I asked if there were a clearer name for the engagement. Muwarallis indicated that there is no other name. Sea battles are not my specialty, but it strikes me that identifying one only by its date is not tremendously helpful to the typical encyclopedia user we are supposedly writing for. Is there any convention for naming engagements like this that have nothing but a date to identify them? If there is (as I suspect) none, does anyone have a suggestion for one? Lineagegeek (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I have always wondered about this, and whether at a minimum, it should be "Naval action of 3 October 1624", as the title doesn't even provide that information. An alternative might be "Fooian/Foish naval action of 3 October 1624", although this would be complicated if there were more than two belligerents. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

If no common name is available (or a translation of one), I suggest include location and/or the war this engagement was a part of in the article name. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This caught my eye. No real opinion, but note that "location" of sea battles unless close to some land feature is very abstract. I'd lean to the suggestion just above and at least define it as a naval engagement as that explains a bit. So many big naval engagements took place in a specific geographic area, "Coral Sea" for example, even if out of sight of land that we may forget many took place far at sea where the geographic area is a vast ocean. That said, the article in question, does not even come close to such geographic fog. Galleys were in action off Sardinia. Even if not used in references I'd see clarification in "Naval action of 3 October 1624 off San Pietro Island, Sardinia" or just "Naval action of 3 October 1624 off Sardinia". Palmeira (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hitler's prophecy needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Hitler's prophecy; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm on it, but we'll still need a couple more afterwards. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A-class concerns

I am concerned that the quality of A-class reviews has fallen considerably from the days when, as FAC delegate, I relied on them as top-notch. They are increasingly just prose nitpicks, as seen by the level of issues found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Manuel Noriega/archive1, and further discussed on article talk, compared to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manuel Noriega. Is there a process whereby A-class is re-assessed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: - The instructions at WP:MILHIST/ACR say to drop a notice on the coordinator talk page, but this ought to be good enough. At least from my experience, I almost think that the Noriega review may be from most of the editors involved not having the familiarity with the subject matter to know where to look for details, and then maybe a bit of a lapse on the source review, also due to unfamiliarity. The ACR standards for some topics, such as ships, still seems to be pretty high yet, and I've been satisfied with the reviews for Confederate States Army units I've brought through, and would say the articles have definitely been improved my them. I agree with you, though, that quite a bit slipped through the Noriega review, though. Honestly a bit disconcerting. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

G’day SG, the process is the same as nominating for promotion (per WP:MHR), just include in the nom statement why you are putting it up for re-assessment. Note that the old ACR page has to be moved to /archive1 to make room for the re-assessment first. Let me know if you want a hand with that or if the instructions aren’t clear. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't plan to initiate the A-class reassessment, or the GAR (which is also needed); I will leave that to those who participate in those processes. I came to this article via FAC, and if I got involved in re-assessing all the faulty GA passes I am aware of, I would never get any other work done. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Having now been through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents/archive1 (which also passed A-class), it strikes me that the problem is that reviewers may not have even read the sources. Between both articles, there are several instances where the sources just aren't fully or accurately represented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

To the extent that there's a problem here, I agree that the likely cause is the obscurity of the topics these articles cover to most English language Wikipedia editors. Articles on, say, World War II or the American Civil War, tend to get reviews which go well beyond propose comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree - my sense is, this is the result of the shortcomings of the group (and en.wiki more broadly); we tend to be western Europeans or Americans (apart from our ANZAC contingent), and we tend to focus on mainstream military topics (i.e., the world wars, ACW, Napoleon, etc.). That is to say, there are much lower odds that someone will be well-versed enough in Central/South American issues to pick up on some of the issues Sandy identified with Noriega. That article is also a fairly long one, which tends to discourage reviews, and it's a controversial topic, which does as well. Look at how long Albert Kesselring sat at WP:GAN#WAR before someone picked it up for review the other day. All that is to say that I don't know that the quality of MILHIST A-class reviews has gone down, but these two articles are examples of flaws in the process that have always existed. I'd wager you could go through older articles on "off the beaten path" topics and find examples that have similar issues. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, any time this sort of criticism is made, it is appropriate to examine our own reviewing practices and see where we can improve, but I think we need to be clear about where we, as a project, have particular strengths, and where we have weaknesses. Not all ACRs are equal, despite Sandy's implication that they were all of high quality in the past, that just isn't true. I have become keenly aware that we often struggle to gain sufficient high quality reviews at ACR for politico-military incidents and biographies, especially where there are controversies involved or they relate to non-English-speaking nations. In my experience, the politico-military bios, especially of controversial figures like Noriega or Kesselring are amongst the hardest to write and adequately review, especially the latter if you aren't familiar with the subject area. It is only recently that we introduced a formal source review requirement to ACR, perhaps we need to beef up the guidance there? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is also that it seems to me that a lot of the ACRs being reviewed are done by a small core of reviewers. I know I've personally felt a few times a bit of pressure to go ahead and review a nomination that's been sitting around for months so that it doesn't stagnate, even though I know next to nothing about the subject matter, so I can't drill down all the way. There's also the issue with a lot of ACRs using heavily paywall or print sources, which is understandable. There's a lot of AGF in the process, so if there's errors with the nominator, it might not get caught until someone who just happens to have the book shows up. And it honestly has to be like that; its unaviodable. If my ACR nom at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Missouri Field Battery had to wait around for someone with copies of Forsyth, McGhee, and Johnson's highly obscure books, it'll never get done (I don't have access to a scanner to email a reviewer pages). ACR's not a perfect process, but, bar FAC, it's the most thorough and reliable reviewing process I've been around during my time here. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, I use my mobile phone to take photos of pages in references these days. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Having spent a good deal of time reading (almost) all of the sources in these two cases, I may be in a position to offer some tips ala red flags that you might watch for, and what you might do differently when those red flags present. I accept that these articles (like Kesslring) are different from the typical battle, ship, armament, etc. Be aware of the areas where typical MILHIST strengths might not be enough to reveal issues so that you can take a deeper dive in those cases. MILHIST editors would naturally see things that are "off" in more typical MILHIST content areas, just as I saw things that were "off" wrt Latin America in these articles, which led me to start reading sources. Oddly, the first thing that sent me searching for sources was the strange claim about whether Noriega's parents were married, and him meeting his "brother" in high school; that was culturally off, so I went looking. While searching for info on that, I kept finding more and more issues. The "red flags" indicating a deeper check needed for these articles were: non-English-speaking, intelligence agencies (CIA) involvement (where for sure things are not black and white), controversial political figure within their own country, controversial political figure in English-speaking country (US) as well. The next "red flag" that might have been checked was the amount of reliance on one source: I raise that as something to watch for because we've seen similar in many of the MILHIST bios that have come through FAR. When some of these red flags present, a deeper dive on the sources, with an obligatory source-to-text integrity check, might help. In this case, simply reading the sources is what revealed problems to me that were even beyond what I initially saw. Each time I went to check out one piece, I uncovered something else! I would not expect MILHIST reviewers to know of the cultural or Spanish-language issues that were missed, or that initially triggered me to read deeper, but some of the other problems would have surfaced earlier by reading the sources. Then by the time it hit FAC, I would have been just adding the Spanish-language pieces. Another thing you might do when red flags are triggered is review the talk page. I found these articles so odd that I reviewed talk to see what was happening, and saw multiple editors had fallen away, who had in the past been raising some of the same concerns I saw. And also significantly, I found no presence of Panamanian editors at the article ... indeed, I have yet to find any on Wikipedia!

And finally, please remember ... you can always drop a note on my talk page if you need help with Spanish sources! HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Military history reviewers (myself included) do often have blindspots around political bias issues. In articles on, say, boats or battles this generally doesn't matter much. However, on articles where there's a political aspect there's a real risk of problematic content not being spotted until FAC when editors with broader expertise consider the article. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

One possible explanation for problems like these is that spot checks are not conducted on editors' noms when those editors have several A-class articles under their belt. This becomes and issue when an editor sheparding the nomination is not the sole author of the article. Because even if that editor was proficient and diligent with the content they added, they might assume that what is already there is fine, and thus it is never checked by anybody. Also ditto for older noms simply not being up to par because our standards and ethos have changed. Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is technically A-class under Milhist (I took it through FAR) but in reality it might not even meet our C-class criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A minimum of spot checks should ideally be done for any article if possible regardless of whether the nominator has previous successful nominations. I always try to. (t · c) buidhe 14:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Good topic nomination

I would be grateful to any project member with a moment to spare who cast their eye over this nomination for a good topic. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Images

Can someone enlighten me as to the copyright status of the following images? Are they good to go for Commons and what copyright tag should I use? Thanks in advance.--Catlemur (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo taken in the Soviet embassy in Stockholm on 2 February 1944 2 3 4

GAR notice

HMS Hermione (1782), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Rant time!

"But the Wiki isn't a forum!" yeah yeah, I know, you don't have to shove a WP:Something in my face like a common robot. As a matter of fact I've always hated that, talk to me like a person would, the Wiki has enough bots as it is.

I just want to say that I'm disheartened and demoralized, and I really should take a break. I poured hundreds of thousands of bytes into a subject I'm passionate about, but I feel like I have that much more work ahead still, at least. My Transylvanian roots spurred my interest into the Battle of Transylvania of WW1, and soon afterwards, I discovered a lackluster niche that I knew I could make a meaningful contribution to: the entire Romanian Campaign of WW1. But...It increasingly feels like too much for a single person. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the spell-checkers and the like who trim my articles to make sure they're better, but these are generalist things. I really wish that more would be interested, because there is still so much to do, and I can't do this constantly. What's the rush, you may ask? Well, the articles already existing when I started my work had been like that - in their quasi-stub state and with neglected accuracy - for years. For instance, for years, people could see the Battle of Transylvania before I started working on it and see in the infobox the blatant lie that 440,000 Romanians opposed 70,000 Austro-Hungarians. That 70,000 is the Romanian estimate, by no means the actual number, which was 34,000. The Romanians also numbered somewhat less, 369,000. Worse still, it failed to account for changes in the forces. By mid-September it was the Central Powers outnumbering the Romanians. And this is just one instance. I genuinely fear that the BS has been allowed to dwell for so many years, that all my work has been too little and too late, as people believe this stuff by now. And I personally do not understand this neglect. Once you dig into it a bit, you realize that the Battle of Transylvania had global importance: it induced the change of the German Chief of Staff, it created conditions for the creation of a German-led joint command of the Central Powers and it caused all German offensives on all other fronts to be halted. Transylvania became quite literally the top German priority, thus, why the short shrifts? Please, stop treating this battle like a footnote of WW1, because, it ain't. And it's this precise treatment that led to this deplorable situation. Even as it stands right now, the BoT article may well be obsolete. The Romanian 1st Army was the weakest of the Romanian armies invading Transylvania, and took the least amount of territory. Yet, look at all the tens of thousands of bytes required to cover the actions of it alone during this battle!

Now despite my rant, I don't really fault anyone for not taking on this subject. Finding good sources and putting it all together surely is a daunting task. I myself needed weeks to gather the materials for the Battle of Nagyszeben alone. Plus that some of the sources themselves are full of it, and one needs to be careful. A particularly egregious example is a book I found on Google Books, stating among others that the Romanians were driven from Transylvania by 28 September! 28 September! When the Romanians still occupied a third of the region! I just...needed to vent. I know this kinda breaks the rules, but, after all my work, haven't I earned this much? I really should take a break, but, do I afford to? Who else is going to write it as it was in my absence? I'm tired... Transylvania1916 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your rant, Transylvania1916. Many of us no doubt feel these factors - I certainly do. People who've put your kind of effort in deserve 3,000 bytes on a *talk* page, yes. When you're feeling tired, when you can, step away and take a break. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with the occasional rant, and thoroughly impressed by the work you have done on a subject where most of us wouldn't know where to start. (Consider writing it up for the Bugle.) We all find the appearance of crap on Wikipedia disheartening; my personal favourite is Bushveldt Carbineers, an article which has stubbornly remained a stub since it was created in 2004, but which claimed the unit was "recognised as the worlds first modern Special forces" from 2008 until 2015 when an IP deleted the claim with the edit summary "removed ridiculous unsubstantiated claim". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I am sympathetic to your feelings. I edit a lot in post-colonial African military history, and the number of users who frequently do that could be counted on one hand. That said, you're as obligated to drop everything to bail out African milhist as I am to scramble over to the Balkans and sort out World War I (did almost do that once). It can be frustrating to scroll through the A-class noms and think "Another American space man?" but this is just all of us doing our own small parts to build up the encyclopedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Pul-e-Charkhi Airfield

Has anyone heard of Pul-e-Charkhi Airfield?

The article was created 9 years ago, it's unreferenced except for a generic Air Force Historical Research Agency link but i found nothing there.

The coordinates given show some sort of signals intelligence base not far from the Pul-e-Charkhi prison.

Gavbadger (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

In view of the free hand the creator of this page took with sources before he was banned for multiple copyvios, and the fact that the airfield only seems to exist in the Wiki article and mirror sites, I doubt its existence. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggest it's possibly an Air Force linked signals intelligence activity? That could have meant Bwmoll3 found some kind of garbled reference to it.. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that the source is to the AFHRA, and is supposedly copied from public domain materials there, given that when I search for it there, I get this, I have my doubts, too. No Google books hits that I can find for an airport there: I'm just getting the prison, the neighborhood, and a small military outpost of some sort there. Also doubting that this exists. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

So maybe where this came from was the small military outpost (SIGINT site?)'s helicopter landing zone? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. Whatever this is, the sum of everyone here's research suggests this isn't notable and is probably misleading, so I've prodded the article with a link to this discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the British DX Club the base is actually home to Radio Afghanistan which was rebuilt in 2003. So i agree with the deletion Gavbadger (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If it does exist, it isn't on the map. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

A-Class Review needs attention

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Missouri Field Battery needs the attention of several more editors in order to complete it; please feel free to review. Disclaimer: My nomination. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Strategic Air Command in the United Kingdom has two reviews, source and image reviews. Needs just one more review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a co-nom

Anybody interested in co-nomming Manned Orbiting Laboratory at FAC? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Hawkeye7: I would, but I'm not going to be able to access most of the offline sources, and I can't really say I've made much of a contribution to that one. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• No problem at all! The article has little in the way of offline sources, and I'm willing do all the work. I just need someone to sign on a s a co-nominator. You know you want to. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm down, then. I won't claim any credit for this, but I'll help with comments as I can. I don't have an open FAC at the moment, so it's not an issue for me. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Excellent! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

FAC needing an additional review/source review

G'day all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier)/archive1 has two supports but needs an additional reviewer and a source review. NB: my nom. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As a newby would I be able to be a volunteer?OyMosby (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've claimed a slot for the source review; should be able to handle that tomorrow. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Noted. OyMosby (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, we're good now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

AfD: Daniel Gade

There is a Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion regarding an article about LTC Daniel Gade (USA, Ret.), who is, among other things, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Virginia.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gade
• Daniel Gade
• 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia

Your perspectives and participation in the AfD would be helpful IMHO. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Polite request to u:Transylvania1916

Between "Infantry Attacks" and your rant about demotivation, please, take Hawkeye7's request as seconded by me, and do write another rant for the Bugle!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am interested, for sure, but I don't know the procedure. Where do I write it exactly? Do I just use the wizard like when I create an article? Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My guess is to draw up something in your userspace, and then the coordinators can decide to run it as an interview or such. A user subpage is gonna be the best spot, as it's not gonna be an attempt at an article, so it should be kept out of the regular article/draft spaces or even the template. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So my sandbox will do? Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep. That's honestly probably the perfect place for it. The Bugle sometimes runs an interview with an editor column, so it could get run in there. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggest, Transylvania1916, that there could have been a dead senior commander on the battlefield, but "friction" and other factors meant that the period accounts mixed up divisional commanders, separate brigade commanders, regimental commanders etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Livonian War

Hey everyone, I was at MOS and I found out at MOS:OSNS that in continatal Europe they switched from Old Style to New Style and I found out that the Livonian War (an A) was fought between Catholics who later changed their calender, Russians thus Orthodox and Protestant nations like Denmark–Norway and Sweden. Since the UK still used Old Style until 1 September 1752 it's not clear which calender the article uses. The nominator of the ARC back in 2011 is since 2018 offline; I guess they won't help us. Does anyone know more than I do? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Commendation : u:User:EnigmaMcmxc

I would like to draw to the attention of this project's members the writing of EnigmaMcmxc at 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) for the writeup of the background and history of the British Army of the Rhine in the 1960s and 1970s, leading into the five-battle group divisional org of the 1970s, which now can be re-copied over and added to BAOR and many other relevant articles!! Thank you very much!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Well done, Enigma! Having reviewed the article, it is a great summary, and will be of great benefit to the project. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks guys EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Lists of French Air Force aircraft squadrons

Why do you have a List of French Air Force aircraft squadrons article along with List of active Squadrons of the French Air Force and List of dissolved Squadrons of the French Air Force when the Royal Air Force does the same job with one article?

On the main "List of French Air Force aircraft squadrons" it already has details on both active and dissolved squadrons. The active and dissolved squadrons can easily be merged back into the main article and would be easily to be kept up to date. Also if they do get merged i will be renaming the article to List of French Air and Space Force aircraft squadrons inline with the recent official name change of the force.

Comments please.

Gavbadger (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This was the work of banned User:OJOM; the massive French-English (French-lish?) cleanup continues. In the history you will see a few of my edits across these articles. I endorse a merger into one article; if the articles reaches a size of over 60-80kB of text equivalent (in line with WP:SIZERULE), the question can be reassessed. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Discord?

Hi all! As you may know, Wikipedia has an unofficial Discord server. I've been active there for several months, and found it a really great way to informally discuss wikipedia matters while building a sense community. Several wikiprojects, such as WPMED and WPVG, have channels specific to their project where related discussion can be held. If there is enough interest among members of the Military history project, the server would be happy to create a #milhist channel, and I think it could be a great asset to the project. Please do let me know if you would be interested in joining. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Re, WPMED, we do? I don't see it there or know how to find it, nor have I ever heard of it. Cluestick? (If it's IRC, I don't know what that is, nor do I intend to learn :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Sure do! If you click the 'Join Server' button at WP:Discord, you will be sent to the server, probably prompted to create a discord account, and be able to access it. There are various channels along the side (labeled by #CHANNELNAME) and WPMED is under 'wikiprojects'. Of course, it's maintained by volunteers and I don't think there's a formal association with the project. (I also don't have the faintest clue how IRC works, but have found Discord to be rather intuitive). Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Eddie ... I think I'll pass. I have always believed Wiki matters should be solved on Wiki, for all to see. If one has to join some (thing) somewhere else, it's not my cup of tea. But thanks for the help! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree - the collaborative nature of Wikipedia means that discussions on other forums, and especially ones where there aren't public logs kept, should generally be avoided. The stupidest thing which has happened to me as a Wikipedia editor and admin arose from an IRC discussion. Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a fan of off-wiki communication myself. Except occasional emails, mainly for welfare checks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Nor me, either, except for emails in a small number of situations, mostly for when it would be too long to place on a talk page. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about Marine Corps Ribbon

You are invited to join the discussion at File talk:Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal ribbon, 17th award.svg § Silver stars are supposed to be on the left?. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wider discussion needed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)

At an A-Class nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom), the one last remaining point to be determined is if the article should be split. Some more discussion as to this point is needed, so if a few editors could take a look at the article and the discussion and provide their opinions as to whether the article should be split or not, that would be appreciated. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Big gap in our coverage (NATO)

So I just created NATO forces in Poland and as far as I can tell it is the first and only article we have on NATO military presence in a particular country. Another topic we also have very poorly covered are NATO exercises (see List of NATO exercises/Category:NATO military exercises; German category at de:Kategorie:NATO-Übung is much better...). It is really surprising how bad our coverage of the recent events is, outside of the famous ones like some Middle East real combat operations. Do we have any taksforce or such which is taking care of this topic area? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, they would fall into the Cold-War and Post-Cold-War taskforces, but they aren't particularly active. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've started a draft on Exercise Spring Train whose 1982 edition was important in the Falklands War preparations. Does anyone know when it stopped running? The last reference to an exercise I can find is 1989, I presume it ended with the Cold War and has been supplanted by Exercise Joint Warrior - Dumelow (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

List of U.S. Department of Defense code names lists a large number of the NATO Cold War exercises; I tracked down some information on Active Edge, and Arkin 2005 lists most of the relevant exercise names. I've just noticed that "Display Determination" is not there, but "Destined Glory" is. I continue adding to the DOD code names list, and Arkin 2005 is the source for the names; the data can mostly be found on the Net once one has the name. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just added 'Battle Royal' (1954) from the I BE Corps article to the NATO exercises list. As all the exercise designations are in DOD format, laid down by Joint Staff, my master page is actually the DOD page rather than the NATO page. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Dumelow thank you for your work on now-Exercise Spring Train!! Please add it to List of U.S. Department of Defense code names. Note "Spring Train" was Royal Navy unilateral, not NATO. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot06, I've added it to the DoD list. I think I picked up the NATO connection from Koburger (1983) who wrote: "Considerably assisting the navy in its own mobilization was the happy accident of having some of its ships already at top line , at Gibraltar for exercises (NATO's "Spring Train") in the Mediterranean" - Dumelow (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I know there was at least Exercise Spearpoint 76, which was a Anglo-America-Dane training exercise in Germany. Some info and sources on it are currently available in the 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) article, until it may be shortly split off. The impression I was given, was that there was other Spearpoint exercises?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of forces-war-records.co.uk

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: forces-war-records.co.uk. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can help?

An editor seems inclined to delete significant RS-supported text that they do not seem to like, which bears on the utterance of Allahu Akhbar as a battle cry while performing terrorist acts.

The mass delete is here.

Other eyes would be helpful. Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:7970:6CEA:7159:A47A (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It is way too long.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there an appropriate middle ground? Or should it be a stand-alone article? Or part put in a footnote?

This material is a huge amount of what you see in RS references to the phrase in google searches of RSs .. but has been nearly entirely cut out of the article.

The balance should one would think better reflect that in the RSs. Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7970:6CEA:7159:A47A (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

We mention its use, that seems to me reasonable. Now you might be able to add a few lines, but that would be all.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Crusades

After long debates I have proposed spilitting Crusades into 1) Article on crusades in the Levant, 2) Article on the idea of crusading across wider geographies, periods and motivations. All feedback is very welcome on the articles talk page. Many thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This has now expanded to an RFC on article titles in the Crusade space, all feedback welcome.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please free free to use excellent new photographs by Ed Gold

Hi, military historians. I have been assisting the photojournalist Ed Gold to upload sets of his photographs to Wikipedia Commons. He was embedded with 2 PARA from July 2010 to July 2011 and went on tour with them in Helmand. The 90 or so photos he has given CC BY-SA 4.0 licenses to are stunning, in my opinion, and could be incorporated in several articles but especially 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, obviously. The easiest link to them is "here to the category".. Ask me if you need any advice on the details, for example for captions. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That's awesome, Michael, but they really should have more detail about the subjects and dates in the file descriptions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ed Gold is IRL off-the-grid and I'm glad I've been able to help him upload his stunning work under the best license for sharing. Together, he and I hope to upload perhaps hundreds more of his images and we are doing so one Project at a time (see his article for other Projects). You military historians were lucky this was the first full batch we completed. Under the circumstances, you will appreciate his inability to provide more than a scant detail on any one image. To get more detail, work from the source(s) linked in his article — or look at his website. If you get stuck with a particular image you have definitely decided to include in an article, put it in anyway and ping me or comment on my talk page and I'll seek the details you need direct from Ed. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: you very urgently need to arrange confirmation from the photographer that they agree to the upload of their images by you under those licence conditions, and then you need to change the upload details to reflect this. At present you are uploading the images under what appears to be an incorrect claim that you are the copyright owner of the images and have provided no evidence I can see that Mr Gold has agreed to their upload under that license. This makes them subject to speedy deletion and your account could also be blocked. Any editors who use these images in articles could potentially also be sanctioned given the Commons details are obviously fatally flawed at present. Advice on what you need to do is at Commons:Licensing and Commons:OTRS. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ed and I went through the full OTRS process, as you would have found out if you had bothered to look. Ticket #2020071110005674. I explicitly said what the nature of the license is when I began this thread. I am very annoyed that you took it upon yourself to remove all these images, including, particularly from Ed Gold itself. Ed is currently writing an article for Signpost about how badly he, as a WP:BLP victim feels he has been treated by some Wikipedia editors and your actions over the last 24 hours are a classic example of what NOT to do. Please restore all the images that were subject to your vandalism. I have better things to do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Honestly Michael D. Turnbull, while it is a shame that you are very annoyed, Nick-D has been absolutely right in their actions. While you might have gone through the OTRS process, this is not reflected on the individual image pages. Every single image needs to show the full licensing details, including that OTRS ticket. As Nick points out, the images currently make it look as though you are the copyright holder. Without all of the images being updated with the correct information, they will be deleted. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to e-mail the admins with a verifiable claim, and let them decide if you have permission to use these images.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The housekeeping here is essential for the images to actually be usable. Michael, rather than fulminate and make threats, please fix the copyright details. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. I have (via Ed Gold) a copy of an e-mail from Alfred Neumann of the Commons OTRS confirming that I am authorised by the photographer (Ed) to upload such images in future. I notified the OTRS at 16:28 yesterday afternoon UK time via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in which I said

Hi Permissions-folk I am getting on well with uploading Ed Gold’s pictures to commons. So far the files are these: Yuendumu_Gold_01.jpg to Yuendumu_Gold_33.jpg 2PARA_Gold_01.jpg to 2PARA_Gold_92.jpg And a few miscellaneous. In a previous message you indicate that you wished to be notified of these uploads as they were done. Presumably this is to prevent their accidental speedy deletion. I wonder if we could agree a different protocol. I suggest that from now on I use the licensing text: {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} {{Personality rights}} <!- if required --> ticket #2020071110005674 This explicitly puts the ticket number into the license and would allow any admin who was thinking of speedy-deleting to see that the action was unwarranted. Is that satisfactory, or should I continue to e-mail you as I complete batches? Thanks for your help

I had an immediate auto-response indicating that my e-mail had been received but I have not yet had a personal reply (volunteers there are busy, no doubt). Have I missed something (in which case I humbly apologise) or have I done all the right things? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the e-mail were they say "Yep you have copyright". I suggest you ask the licencing team to comment here and tell us all is fine and dandy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

NO. Find a wiki-lawyer to do that if you want to continue wasting people's time. I try hard not to: do you have any idea how long it takes to upload 140 images one-by-one and get all the details (plus the license) correct? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You are the one that raised this issue, I am telling how to Simply revolve it. I fail to see why this is going to far for you.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yuendumu Gold 01

OK, I've got to the bottom of this. The problem is merely that Ed and I have swamped the OTRS folk with work. If you check out the image from the Yuendumu series (inserted here) by drill-through to Commons, you'll see that it has the correct OTRS tag. However, I am not allowed to add these tags: only OTRS volunteers may do so. Thus, in the fullness of time, all the 2PARA images will get that review and be valid for use in articles. If you want to expedite that process because you spot an image you wish to use, then I'm not sure of how you can speed up the tagging but possibly by sending a begging e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

For info of project members, make sure you don't use any of these for articles going to GAN or higher until they have the correct OTRS tags. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

They shouldn't be used in any articles until the OTRS tags are added. Mike, OTRS is always backed up so there is unlikely to be any alternative to being patient here - sending more emails to them would likely just increase the backlog. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Nick, while that is true, there are tens of thousands of copyvios on Commons that are in articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ALL of Mr Gold's photographs now have full ORTS licenses of the correct type for use within WP. It has been suggested that the personality rights warning may limit their use. This is not the case, as confirmed in this e-mail from permissions-commons@wikimedia.org today: "Dear Mike Turnbull, The personality rights warning refers to external reuse only, i.e. when somebody wants to print that on any product or flyer or similar. For the educational use within Wikipedia you can assume you won't get any request [to help get model release permissions] at all. Yours sincerely, Alfred Neumann" Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like some advice regarding occupation zones...

I intend to make articles about the (Austro) Hungarian areas occupied by the Romanian Army in 1916. You may wonder why I would find this necessary, since I can address them in battle-related articles. Well, in such articles, I would largely be going off-course going into, say, the population of a town at the time. Or the total list of settlements occupied in that sector of the front. Or the importance of any such settlement. I find it more fitting to neatly pack this extra information into dedicated articles. But here's what puzzles me: how many such articles should I make? Me personally, I think 3. One would be about the area occupied by the Romanian 2nd and 4th/North armies. These managed to unite and establish a contiguous front. The two reached their peak extent at the start of October. Another would be about the Transylvanian territory occupied by the Romanian 1st Army. Its area of occupation was 15 miles away from the 2nd Army, and the two never united. Aside from the geographical separation, the 1st Army also had a different tempo, reaching its peak extent by mid-September. Finally, the third area would be the zone of the Banat region occupied by the 1st Army, namely its 1st Division. Not only was this division completely separated geographically from the rest of the 1st Army, its tempo was yet again vastly different. Its area of occupation never extended much beyond a single town, but this town was held for much longer. Whilst in Transylvania the 1st Army lost all the settlements it occupied by early October, this town in the Banat was held well into November. This is how I would organize things, I now await other opinions. Transylvania1916 (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not know much about your area of interest but have worked on some other occupation articles in the past, such as German occupation of Belgium during World War I. My feeling is that there is unlikely to be much benefit from splitting the topic into three articles when they could be addressed in one overarching topic. Inevitably, many of the social, political and economic aspects of the occupation will be common to all three articles and will result in WP:CFORKs. I think it's important to remember that we are writing for a non-specialist audience for whom it is probably more useful to have a single good overview than a number of narrow articles. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. When an occupation is long lasting and has an administration that is detached from the operational command of units in the field then there is some merit in an article, but the situation in Hungary/Romania in 1916 is one of fluid control where the occupation is administered by the force in the field of battle. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Second Battle of Sirte

I began a quick copy-edit of this article and as quickly ran into a dead end. In my view the article needs a re-write by someone with experience of the manual of style. Having given up and reverted my CE, I reduced the article to C-class and left my impressions on the talk page. I wonder if anyone fancies taking up the poison chalice? Keith-264 (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind MOS - I think that the colossal quoting on that page is at such length that it gets into possible copyvio territory.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Inexperience rather than indifference to wikifu to my mind but it's certainly too big a job for my drive-by editing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

new items for contemporary history

hi! I created some new items to help with documenting contemporary history. open to any feedback. thanks!

here they are:

• 2020s in political history
• Template: 2020s in political history

--Sm8900 (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Colonel Augustus Moor

I'm working on the Battle of Droop Mountain, and plan to have a GA version before the year is over. The current version is pretty bad. I need a photo of Colonel Augustus Moor, but have not been able to find any that I can use. He was commander of the 28th Ohio Infantry Regiment, and led the flanking maneuver that was crucial in the Battle of Droop Mountain. He later became a brigade and then division commander. I am also searching for a usable photo of William L. "Mudwall" Jackson in uniform. Anyone know of any photos? I have had no luck with Library of Congress or a 1912 book on the New Market Campaign. TwoScars (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)