Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Anglo-Turkish War of 1918-1923
Found this while patrolling. I can't find references to an "Anglo-Turkish War" using basic google searches, which seems odd given the scale of this article and the large countries involved? I am also wary that this might be a WP:FORK of Turkish War of Independence, which is an article with neutrality issues. Therefore I bring it here for your consideration. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems like a neologism to me too. Huntthetroll (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Seems like a neologism to me too. The infobox appears to reflect the Turkish War of Independence (for what the infobox is worth). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article has now been moved twice, unnecessarily creating a double redirect. At least one editor seems dead-set on the name "Anglo-Turkish War". (See also Sockpuppet_investigations/BaharatlıCheetos2.0.) Huntthetroll (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that the same editor also created Greek war crimes, which is certainly a valid subject to cover (although perhaps better in combined form for both sides a la List of massacres during the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) ), but needs a "neutral" editor to check it. SnowFire (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Encounters with persistent Vietnam-based IP editor on tank design topics
After checking some recent edits and going through article histories, I noticed frequent, anonymous edits (mostly geolocated to Bắc Giang, Vietnam) that have added near-identical material to several related articles. IPs used:
 * Jack-in-the-box effect: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8, diff 9, diff 10
 * M109 howitzer: diff
 * M1 Abrams: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8
 * Leopard 2: diff 1, [diff 2, diff 3, diff 4
 * Challenger 2: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6
 * Stridsvagn 122: diff 1,
 * 9M133 Kornet: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8, diff 9, diff 10, diff 11, diff 12, diff 13, diff 14, diff 15, diff 16, diff 17, diff 18, diff 19, diff 20, diff 21, diff 22, diff 23
 * 1.54.214.229
 * 14.191.8.19
 * 14.191.9.50
 * 14.244.98.205
 * 27.3.144.143 (blocked for sockpuppetry)
 * 27.3.160.28
 * 27.73.64.74 (blocked for block evasion)
 * 27.73.64.162
 * 27.73.78.67
 * 27.73.80.122
 * 103.3.255.99
 * 113.165.166.131
 * 116.98.124.124
 * 116.101.196.140
 * 116.110.110.20
 * 117.7.110.182
 * 123.18.99.55
 * 171.224.139.129
 * 171.234.171.65
 * 171.238.230.193
 * 171.242.240.146
 * 171.242.242.178 (warned for IP-hopping)
 * 2001:EE0:4A60:2490:6C6A:FF06:55A9:E868
 * 2001:EE0:4A60:A450:7849:67E0:D14B:2309
 * 2001:EE0:4A61:2050:ACC4:D69A:787:52D3
 * 2001:EE0:4A61:5530:92C:D607:5412:D2C8
 * 2001:EE0:4A61:9990:58F1:B418:9643:32BB
 * 2001:EE0:4A61:99F0:15AA:97FA:3C49:C7C8
 * 2001:EE0:4A62:6B50:114:8D4E:8F30:5CD4
 * 2001:EE0:4A62:7A00:3D88:1FDA:B435:E0BA
 * 2001:EE0:4A63:FD40:D115:D8E5:B307:E3DE
 * 2001:EE0:4A63:FD40:FD33:BAA8:3BD3:64AA
 * 2402:800:6130:F555:A576:A1A9:3752:DE0E

These edits have some common characteristics: they cite speculative or unreliable sources, falsify a cited source, inject discussion of logistics and cost-effectiveness into a discussion about vulnerability to ammunition cook-off, or make claims about Western tank designs that are either unsourced or close to tautologically obvious. The net effect on the article is also similar: the relative vulnerability of Soviet/Russian tanks to catastrophic ammunition explosions, as compared to Western tanks, is minimized or justified in terms of design trade-offs; the effectiveness of the 9M133 Kornet anti-tank missile and other Soviet/Russian weapons is emphasized. (Another trait of the editor(s) in question is edits to Recognition of same-sex unions in Vietnam and articles on battles involving Soviet forces in World War II.) To be clear, I think an analysis of tank design choices would be good to have on this encyclopedia, but it would need to be properly sourced and appropriately placed, instead of being spammed across multiple articles. As far as I can tell, members of this project, including me, have either reverted or pared down these edits wherever we have found them. Who else has encountered this, and has anyone tried to reach out to the editor(s) involved, to discuss how their contributions could be improved? Huntthetroll (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Since two of these IPs have been blocked for sockpuppetry and this person has been falsifying sources and adding speculative, unreliable and POV text, perhaps an administrator should look at this., , , . Donner60 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you want me to see? Opportunities for range blocks or requests for semi-protection? Drmies (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Opportunities for range blocks for now. If that is not entirely effective, perhaps can suggest semi-protection for articles, at least those in the above list that have been corrected or continue to be subject to further vandalism. I ask Huntthetroll to check the articles and report on further steps and to note whether help from other editors familiar with the subject matter can help. I doubt that a confirmed sockpuppet and identified and determined POV and erroneous content pusher will respond to any editors who reach out, maybe including administrators. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Limited strictly to articles that have been the focus of this user's disruptive tank design edits, I would recommend all the articles linked in my original post for semi-protection, plus Merkava, T-72 tanks in Iraqi service, and T-72. Huntthetroll (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at IP ranges provides a more complete picture of this user's interests (military weapons and vehicles, Russo-Ukrainian War, Vietnam War, Eastern Front of WWII) and editing patterns (frequent disputes with other editors, usually over battle data[who won, size of forces, losses], weapon capabilities, or source reliability; not-quite-full fluency in English; source swapping; source falsification):
 * Cacharo66 from 29 January 2022 to 14 February 2022
 * 14.191.8.0/23 from 2 December 2021 to 30 May 2024
 * 27.3.144.0/24 from 23 February 2021 to 29 May 2024
 * 27.3.160.0/24 from 2 December 2020 to 23 May 2024
 * 27.73.64.0/19 from 20 January 2021 to 3 July 2024
 * 103.3.255.0/24 from 3 February 2020 to 18 December 2023
 * 113.160.158.0/24 from 17 March 2022 to 14 June 2023
 * 118.107.72.0/24 from 9 August 2018 to 24 July 2023
 * 171.238.230.0/24 from 18 May 2023 to 7 September 2023
 * 171.242.240.0/21 from 23 October 2023 to 16 February 2024
 * 2001:EE0:4A60:0:0:0:0:0/46 from 18 January 2022 to 6 July 2024
 * Some specific examples of editing patterns, obfuscated by IP-hopping:
 * Editing at Battle of Vĩnh Yên: diff 1 by 171.237.77.75; diff 2 and diff 3 by 171.224.139.131; diff 4 by 2001:EE0:4A63:C450:C01A:2A14:753F:C79D; diff 5 and diff 6 by 27.3.160.246
 * Repeatedly adding a Vietnamese web forum thread as a source for "Viet Minh figures" for casualties in the battle, in order to contrast these with what the editor called "Western figures", which were sourced to four different books listed in the article's bibliography section
 * Diffs 2 and 3 actually replaced the four book citations with one citation to the forum and one to a raw Google Books link
 * Similar diff at Battle of Nà Sản, which did not lead to an edit war because no one reverted it
 * Again, English-language book sources labeled as "Western figures" and contrasted with "Việt Minh’s report", which is sourced to a Vietnamese-language website (this time, an actual government website)
 * Editing at Battle of Kursk: diff 1 and diff 2 by 27.3.160.161; diff 3 and diff 4 by Cacharo66; diff 5 by 113.160.158.114; diff 6 by 103.3.255.99; diff 7 by 2001:EE0:4A61:15E0:2140:B287:163:1654; diff 8 by 113.160.158.231; diff 9 by 113.160.121.153; diff 10 by 27.3.144.226; diff 11 by 2001:EE0:4A61:AF90:454:D9D3:6200:EDE5; diff 12 by 2001:EE0:4A63:C410:AC5A:AB5F:1760:CCF6; diff 13 by 2001:EE0:4A61:7560:3C81:2296:2C7C:C096; diff 14 by 14.191.9.250; diff 15 by 14.191.8.28
 * Multiple different changes, all seeking to reduce the article's reported figures for Soviet losses and increase the corresponding figures for German losses
 * Using articles from RIA Novosti as a source on the same level of reliability and detail as multiple dedicated books
 * Using the Soviet General Staff's report on the battle without caveats, despite numerous questions raised about its reliability by other sources cited in the article
 * On the rare occasions that this editor has sought to discuss edits with others, the constant IP-hopping creates a misleading impression of the number of people involved in the conversation. Seeking to have the description of North Vietnamese casualties changed in the Vietnam War infobox, this editor used three different addresses in conversation with User:Tpbradbury; as well as another three addresses with User:Slatersteven, with User:Toughtofu, and with User:Goszei. Huntthetroll (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 review of the Defence Honours and Awards system (Australia)
Okay, I'm doing up an article on the 2024 review of the Defence Honours and Awards system which also covers the background honours scandal. I was hoping that someone could read over it and let me know if it can be written any better, including if I need more references. The Senate report is due to be published on 28 November 2024, and I'm not sure if I should wait for that before posting to mainspace. Obviously a very real-world ongoing issue with some 13 generals facing having their Distinguished Service Cross's stripped, so don't want to make any silly mistakes, if that makes sense. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great work here. I'll leave some comments on the draft's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Chosin Reservoir result
I would appreciate more eyes on the result parameter of the Infobox for Battle of Chosin Reservoir thanks Mztourist (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Francis, Duke of Guise
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Francis, Duke of Guise that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   22:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 23:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Expansion Request
I started the article Harrison S. Kerrick. The main source is a New York Times obituary, which I can't access. Could someone with a New York Times subscription go in and expand the article with the information I am missing from the obituary? Or at least link me a copy of the article to expand myself? Roasted (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Roasted, if nobody here can help, you could try WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Deception island incident, 1953
I've been doing some research on this obscure incident and decided to write an article about it, any comments and opinions welcome. Link: Deception Island incident Bob meade (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I've added a note to the HMS Snipe (U20) article. Alansplodge (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And to the Deception Island article. Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Change to 96th Infantry page needed
I have moved this from the co-ordinator talk page and changed the title from: change to 96th Infantry page? in order to give it move coverage. At first reading, I think some change is needed in these articles. Also, perhaps we might need to investigate other instances of this sort of thing in other articles connected to the blocked user. Donner60 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I am on the board of the 96th Infantry Division Heritage Association and need some guidance regarding a modification of the Wiki history of the 96th Infantry Division (United States).

Our group is composed mainly of descendants and friends of members of the WWII 96th ID (US) dedicated to the preservation of the history of the 96th. We have been collecting information from the Army archives in St. Louis, MO. We also have contact with the Ft Douglas Museum in Salt Lake City, UT which is storing some of our material as well as records of the 96th successor reserve units. Our intention is to expand on the history of the 96th ID and also add to the information of the after war reserve units. While the reserves were not combat units, they did serve in several post-war conflicts.

In June of 2008 the original 96th ID Wiki page was renamed to 96th Sustainment Brigade, without discussion, by a “Dcfowler1” with the 96th ID page now being a redirect. We were not the only group affected and it seems his actions resulted in a temporary suspension of editing privileges.

Since the 96th ID was the parent organization we would like to know if it would be possible to reverse this and return to the original configuration retaining the 96th SB page as a redirect. The majority of the article pertains to the WWII organization so we feel that this is not an unreasonable request. Alternatively, would it be possible to split the existing article and have separate pages for the 96th ID and 96th SB.

Is this something that falls in line with the goals of the WP:MilHist project? Since the 96th ID page already exists, it is my understanding that any changes of this sort would require the assistance of an administrator. We do not wish to cause any problems or disruption so any suggestions, advise, or guidance you could give would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fyrfly357 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, might I suggest you place this query on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history instead? This page is for the coordination of the WikiProject rather than content matters relating to the wider topic. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I'm still kind of a newbie at all this. Fyrfly357 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Donner60 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear all, I am happy to take this on. The key issue is the official Center for Military History lineage of the 96th Sustainment Brigade. What is the connection, if any to the lineage of the 96th Infantry Division, as shown in the official Lineage and Honors certificate? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. The data is available in the division article. The 96th Inf Div was disbanded in late 1965. The 96th Army Reserve Command (ARCOM) formed a few years later was a TDA not a TO&E formation and thus did not inherit the division's official lineage. I would propose to split the article, 96th Inf Div to 1965; now 96th Sustainment Brigade, descending from the 96th Army Reserve Command, from c1969. Any and all comments welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Resource request
Does any user have access to the most up to date Military Balance? List of active Russian military aircraft would benefit from more up to date sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not my area, but it looks like it's available through WP:TWL. At least when I log in there, click onto "Taylor and Francis" and search "Military Balance" I get a journal entitled "The Military Balance" Volume 124, 2024 - Issue 1; chapter four of which has a listing of assessed current total of Russian units, military equipment etc. - Dumelow (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As Dumelow said, the latest edition is available through the Wikipedia Library. I have been using it for List of equipment of the United States Army. Huntthetroll (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Churchill/Repeat Valiant
Hello everyone. I have a user who seems to be a person with great knowledge about UK nuclear submarines but does not know how to incorporate their information into the article. Their attempts have been wild and without sources and very much in the vein of vandalism which is why I reverted them on half a dozen pages surrounding the subject of the Churchill-class submarines. I have attempted to explain to them on their talk page how to go about doing this, but they seem to be ignoring me. Maybe someone with greater knowledge of the period/nuclear programs (they keep referencing the Mountbatten program) could speak with them. Llammakey (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say they're ignoring you...from that talk page it looks like they don't care about policy and simply want to do things their way. Borderline NOTHERE if you ask me. Intothatdarkness 13:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably, but I do not know enough about that era to judge whether their claims are true or not and those pages are full of misinformation. This isn't the first time I ran into someone claiming to be an old veteran who states everything is wrong. I did not like how I handled it the first time, so I thought I would take a different approach this time and seek someone with more knowledge of the era. Llammakey (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hence why I asked them to read a few policies. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And I am getting a stong I did not hear that vibe, they are right, everyone else is wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

LOL "I am the chairman of HMS Valiant and of the 3rd Submarine Squardron for a reason." Chairman of an imaginary group with imaginary friends? Doesn't the Chairman of the Squardron need to be able to spell. LOL MAXIMA. ——Serial Number 54129 15:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume this is in some way incomplete and it refers to either a board of trustees of some type or some commercial concearn. Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This may be relevant []. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Has the editor veered into WP:LEGALTHREAT with this? (Hohum @ ) 21:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say so. Intothatdarkness 00:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, but anyhow the MOD lawyers would be probably more interested in this editor's alleged possession of classified papers and willingness to mouth off about said possession than anything an online encyclopedia says about a submarine/class of submarines! Zawed (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Definite legal threat. I've blocked them. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They appear to be doubling down on their legal threat (while of course claiming that it isn't a legal threat).Nigel Ish (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything in the articles seems to check out with the sources cited, which appear to be WP: RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which I have now pointed out to them. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Still not hearing it, and still making legal threats. 11:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are doing valiant work (heh!) on that talkpage,, but may I suggest revocation of talk page access? Happy Saturday! (Except to overly- litigious and obstreperous Chairmen perhaps.) 2.28.124.91 (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)