Talk:Charge (warfare)

Vandalism by
Repeatedly reverting edits without any good faith about trying to make the article better is a case of vandalism. For my part, I deleted a grossly false claim according to which the battle of Patay was the first instance where the French defeated the English longbowmen. I don't think I have to source "French cavalry surprised and heavily defeated an English army", since it is an obvious synthesis of an event, and none of the examples of charges in the article is sourced, except when it comes to quotes.

For your part, your edits are not motivated by good faith about trying to make the article better. Your only motivation for doing so is that we had a dispute on the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karbo%C4%9Faz%C4%B1_ambush and your claims were overruled. If you were acting in good faith, you would do the same for all the examples of charges in the article. And doing so now won't prove that you're acting in good faith. It is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

Moreover, you have been warned several times for edit-warring and multiple editors have complained about your behaviour.

I also don't think that saying that "Turkish people kicked your colonial genocidal country out of Anatolia" was necessary. Wikipedia editors must be serious, or at least pretend to be.

Finally, the description of your own account, "jonah verse-82", proves that you're definitely not here to improve the articles of this encyclopedia.

Consequently, I'm asking you to stop reverting my edit.LaHire07 (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, the previous edit claimed that it was 'the first time French succeeded in defeating the English longbowmen in a direct confrontation', so if you think it is wrong, you should bring a source before you change it. I reverted your edits because they didn't have any source. Also, you got warnings for edit warring and verbal assault.

Secondly, my edits have sources, unlike yours which doesn't have any. My claims weren't 'overruled', none of you were able to disprove it. Thus, it still exists on the page but only with the little note of 'Turkish claim'. So, no, nothing was unproved by me or disproved by you. If you have a good faith, which is an attribute you think you determine who has it or not, you shouldn't do the mistakes that unfaithful people do and you shouldn't make unsourced edits.

Thirdly, you might be the last person on this platform that can criticize other users' language. As it can be seen in these examples, , you are not the most serious and respectful person here. Don't forget to mention your edit that you called the Turkish War of Independence soldiers as 'liars', which made me angry. You should mention your provocation first, before complaining about my anger.

And about the 'jonah verse-82'. It is a verse from Quran. Yes, I am a Muslim. I shared a verse about truth, why did it disturb you? My honesty and reliability can be verified by any 'neutral' reader. Your profile description is '...French military history.' does it mean you are here for vandalism?

Let's keep all our previous discussions aside and focus on the real reason we talk here. As a Wikipedia user, I kindly ask you to prove your edit with sources. If you don't have any, I will ask you to revert it until you provide a source. And I find it very aggressive that you opened this section with the title of 'Vandalism by Hsynylmztr' rather than 'Discussion about the battle'. You really didn't have to perform another verbal assault and take this to a personal level. So, please change the title. As a friendly act, which hopefully will solve the enmity between us, I stop reverting your edit for now and I ask you to provide a source and stop insulting me. Thank you u|LaHire07. Hsynylmztr (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

And I actually thought you were going to honestly discuss with me. Turns out you created this section just to attack me, again.Hsynylmztr (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I personally do not like intellectual dishonesty and victimization. Why are you here, disturbing my edits? Because your claims on the other article were overruled (they were, since you kept deleting "Turkish claim"), and you thus want to "avenge" yourself. You're definitely not here to improve things with good faith, and pretending in the History page that I "ignored your answer on the talk page" whereas you just wrote it one day ago confirms your bad faith, which is such that you have not even seen (or pretend not to have seen) that I had added a citation to my edit.
 * Why don't I have your answer on this page on my watchlist by the way? Did you check the box "This is a minor edit" before publishing it, so that I could not see it on my watchlist and you could then claim that I ignored it? That would be extremely vicious. I hope it's just because I didn't have the expanded watchlist, but we never know.LaHire07 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The previous edit claimed that it was 'the first time French succeeded in defeating the English longbowmen in a direct confrontation', so if you think it is wrong, you should bring a source before you change it" You clearly don't understand how a source works. I don't have to add a source when deleting an unsourced sentence. It is the unsourced sentence that has to be sourced. But you should know it, that's literally what you've been doing 5 or 6 times on this article now...
 * Comparing me telling you to go away because I perfectly know you're just here to disturb my edits and you having in your description the verse "And Allah will establish the truth, even if the guilty ones dislike it" is a bit far-stretched.
 * Now, how you're playing the card of the innocent victim is quite unbearable I must say.LaHire07 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the OP has been indeffed. Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Notable charges?
This is a de facto list article of notable charges but lacks list inclusion criteria. Inclusion in this list should be that the particular charge is somehow particularly notable otherwise this could be a list of any and every charge ever written about. This is not useful. It is an indiscriminate list (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). It is not encyclopedic. Usually, we would rely on sources (and a consensus in sources) to determine what should be included. An exceptional claim requires exceptional sources. Inclusion in the list must be supported by citations that support inclusion in the list and not just that the charge occurred. Effective list criteria will make the list self-limiting though not necessarily comprehensive. On the other hand, this is not an "actual" list article. As such, it does not strive to be comprehensive. The "notable charges" are just examples. Consequently, an option is to determine (by consensus) a limit to the list. Regardless, there needs to be objective criteria as to how this section of the article is populated. Comments please. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm confused as to why notable charges are described both within the notable charges and the rest of the article as well. The article reads somewhat like fancruft to me as someone not familiar with military tactics. I think List of notable charges should be split off and this article be more focused on the tactic itself and its evolution. Criteria for inclusion, however, is something I don't have the expertise to help with. Are there any academic works on the subject that provide useful criteria? A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support the suggestion of splitting the notable charges list off. It is mainly unsupported by references and, while quite a few entries do explain what is notable, for others it is less clear. It has also grown in size out of proportion to an article whose purpose is to describe the tactical phenomenon.  This would give a better chance of an editor working the base article into something of a higher standard.  As to criteria for notability, I am less than certain.  Being identified in reliable sources as a notable exemplar may be a starting point. Monstrelet (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , your observations are very valid, but splitting out a list article only moves the problem rather than solving it. At List of military disasters, the inclusion issue was resolved by deferring to to sources that specifically dealt with "military disasters".  I made a search of Google books and I'm not seeing any body of sources that would list or have as their central thesis "notable charges" (or similar).  If there were, the solution would be fairly simple.  My initial thought is to simply limit the size of the list to a smallish number for which there is consensus.  Any further inclusions would then need to gain explicit consensus to be added. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , that's fair enough. My splitting proposal was more based on the different character between the notable charges section and the rest of the article. I expect that keeping them both will make the article hard to manage both in due weight and complicated content inclusion considerations. On the small list, my personal opinion is Gaugamela, Hastings, Golden Spurs, Crecy, Nagashino, and Pickett's are charges I've heard about repeatedly so may warrant inclusion. However, I genuinely am not an expert in this area so that's just my personal opinion and therefore OR. I will heavily underscore the fact that the current list is overwhelmingly biased towards Hundred Years' War and Polish charges, which should be addressed. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , explaining what is notable tends toward WP:OR? Having said that, there are certainly some that are pretty clearly notable like the charge of the Light Brigade. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Reference to explanations was an observation, not a suggestion for moving forward. Also, what part counts as OR when none is referenced (the explanation could have come from the unmentioned source)?  In principle, aiming for a short list achieved by consensus is laudable but, in reality, there are many famous charges and some are very important in national stories, so there will be plenty of lobbying for them.  So, the Polish charge at the Siege of Vienna is very important to Poles, the charge of the Light Horse at Beersheba to Australians.  Von Bredow's Death Ride at Mars La Tour is one of the great charges in terms of battlefield impact but will it be popular enough to achieve consensus with a anglophone audience?  So, I think I'd go back to saying a notable charge is one RS describe as such (though not insisting on the exact wording "notable").  Notability can then take many forms, from size, through military significance to cultural resonance provided it is properly sourced. Monstrelet (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , it is one thing to say "This is a particularly notable charge because source X says it is and this is why they say so and what happened". It is quite another for us (a WP editor) to claim it was particularly notable and perhaps cite some sources that explain what happened.  As you observe, most of these entries lack any sources, let alone sources that would claim the events to be particularly notable. This is what I would say is WP:OR. Even in the recent edits to the Battle of Patay, the source added is not yelling us that it was a "particularly notable" charge.  If anything, it is telling us that it is not all that well noted.  However, I think we are in agreement in that a notable charge is one RS describe as such. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we are in agreement. My own opinion on Patay is that it confuses "successful" with "notable", which would be the case of several of the others.  Patay is a significant battle of the HYW, but it is a very scrappy fight with little tactical finesse, so it is hard to say what is notable about the cavalry action in it.  I find the tendency of wiki editors to create "everything but the kitchen sink" lists frustrating.  In this case, we should be looking for a short list of citeably notable charges which illustrate the topic, not a random selection of events.Monstrelet (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * , yes, we are playing from the same sheet and I agree with your assessment of the issue and what we should be striving for. I think that the first step is to prune the list per WP:VER. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * PS - there will be only a few that are "citeably notable charges" described as such. The list will then be self-limiting. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , it occurs to me that if a charge is particularly notable, it will in all probability be noted as such in multiple sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
Per WP:VER, please delete all entries from the section (and subsections) Notable charges that lack any citation. At your discretion, Battle of the Golden Spurs, Charge of the Light Brigade, Pickett's Charge and Battle of Mars-la-Tour (Von Bredow's Death Ride) might be retained as falling to WP:BLUE since they are explicitly named (or alternatively named in the last instance) for being a charge and demonstrably particularly notable for being a charge. Sources will nonetheless be required and should be added directly to confirm their status as being particularly notable charges as confirmed by the sources IAW the preceding discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Protection now expired. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Are these charges particularly notable as charges and described as such in WP:RS
To these particular "charges": charge of the 7th Dragoon Guards (November 11, 1918), charge of the 20th Hussars in Turkey during the 1922 Chanak Crisis, charge of the Savoia Cavalleria at Isbuscenskij, Battle of Schoenfeld and Battle of Vrbanja Bridge. These are claimed to be notable because they are somehow a last charge. The sources would substantiate that they are what they are claimed to be. However, some of these don't meet WP:NOTABILITY that they would have their own articles and some of the sources are questionable and there is even some conflict as to who claims the pole position for being that particular "last". There doesn't appear to be any good quality WP:RS that would assert that that these are particularly notable as charges. Accordingly, I would intend to delete these. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we need the section "notable charges"?
Given the limited population of the section and the likelihood that it will remain small, do we really want this section or is it better to include any material into prose in other sections? There are going to be few sources that specifically say that a particular charge is a notable charge. This section then invites WP:SYNTH ie being last, biggest etc is "notable" therefore, a last, biggest etc charge is notable. Removing this section removes the invitation to engage in SYNTH. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Reviving discussion and suggestion
OK. I read the above discussion and tend to agree that without objective criteria, this section risks becoming a mere listicle either here or on its own if forked out. In fact, before I read this discussion I was going to add Second Battle of Fort Wagner with notability due to the charge being led by the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment. So here's the suggestion: wikilink to Category:Cavalry charges and Category:Infantry charges. Any notable battle involving charges would presumably already have an article which could populate the category or an article could be created if WP:N. Then section size and list pruning wouldn't matter for this article anymore. What do y'all think? Wl219 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I can see some merit in that. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 February 2022
One editor was reverting my edit asking for a citation. I provided a citation. It didn't see it (it seems) and reverted my edit once again telling me to bring a citation... LaHire07 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ not being familiar with this, need to know exactly what you are trying to add, please be specific (e.g. "Add/Delete/Change THIS-TEXT in THIS-SPOT".  If this change is part of the current content dispute, it will need to be discussed here first. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)