Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 125

Copyright concerns related to your project
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. MER-C 11:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide more background on where material is suspected to have been taken from and/or background on this? Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this the relevant CCI cleanup subpage, Nick-D? Here's the "background" from there:

Background  $1LENCE D00600D This SPI may also be relevant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Check requested by Justlettersandnumbers (talk)
 * Problems with Castle Hot Springs (Arizona) were raised here by, with the comment "Several other problems with reported including this troubling conversation with another admin at User talk:Vsmith in which more copyvios are admitted without specifity". I found evidence of copying and/or close paraphrasing at:
 * Castle Hot Springs (Arizona): one Duplication detector report
 * Tucker County Seat War: one Duplication detector report
 * Old Gray County Courthouse: one Duplication detector report
 * Gray County War: one Duplication detector report
 * Ciénega Bridge: one Duplication detector report
 * Ciénega Bridge: one Duplication detector report

Blocked. I'm tired of letting people who make thousands of edits with scores of copyvios walk without even a warning. Wizardman 02:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Idk if this was appropriate to post all that here, so please lmk and I'll delete it if not.. Cheers! JDanek007Talk 21:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Problems with ip assessments
A user ip User talk:64.6.124.31 has assessed a very large number of articles for this project, despite the fact that they are not apparently a member of this project. More problematically this reviews are universally set at start class, regardless of the content of the article - see []. The particular bone of contention with me is the article England in the Late Middle Ages, which, given its length and full citations is clearly not a start class article and was originally set as of high importance, which (since the mention of wars is pretty minor article) is also not accurate. I am not sure what members of the project can do about this issue, which does pretty much make a mockery of the assessment system, but since I cannot get them to stop redoing the review or reconsider it can I request a considered reassessment of this article please?--  SabreBD  (talk ) 22:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So they're "reviewing" articles but rating them all as "start class" regardless of the actual quality of the article and the rating it truly merits? Should they be reported to an administrator? I'm not sure how that works, but it seems the IP User talk:64.6.124.31 may have been doing this for quite some time and has drawn what might be interpreted as expressions of disapproval from other editors such as MOLEY, Peacemaker67 and Bwmoll3 - so it's not just you. JDanek</b><b style="color:Olive">00</b><b style="color:Black">7</b><i style="color:OliveDrab">Talk</i> 23:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed a couple of other comments, but didn't realise it had been commented on so many times. Given that other edits do not seem disruptive I suspect that they just don't understand how the process is supposed to work. The best result would be that they get an account, read the criteria and start actually applying them, of course. Unfortunately it is really easy for an editor to assess articles if they do not read them. It will take a lot longer to check them over in a considered way.--  SabreBD  (talk ) 23:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already fixed the issue at England in the Late Middle Ages and I've issued a formal warning to about this.  The IPs contributions have not been a clear-cut case of mechanical copypasta pro forma assessments, although judging that article as "start" class is laughable.  Recently the IP has been helpfully adding B-class checklists and other items for the WPMILHIST banner.  I think these rushed assessments ought to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
 * I'm opposed to having IP editors on Wikipedia at all and this instance is one reason why. Why is there an editor taking so much effort to garden exclusively within MILHIST but not register an account and join the project?  Should I assume this is a user who is socking for some odd reason? I appreciate having help from anyone across the internet, but I become wary of users I don't know and whom don't become part of the community. Regardless, I don't think this issue rises to the level of seeking admin intervention. Thanks for posting here about the issue so we can address it.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, MILHIST doesn't utilise importance, only class, so some education appears to be in order. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, Peacemaker67 - I hope this can be sorted out! I think MILHIST is an amazing project and have enjoyed consuming its articles for several years! <b style="color:OliveDrab">J</b><b style="color:Black">Danek</b><b style="color:Olive">00</b><b style="color:Black">7</b><i style="color:OliveDrab">Talk</i> 00:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this issue is being raised again. I noted about a dozen articles which I had a major hand in writing were assessed today by IP User 64.6.124.31 as "start" class all within literally seconds of each other, likely the time it took the user to copy and paste an evaluation on the article's talk page. I went though this on 25 March with this user and reverted all of those "assessments " and was subsequently accused by the IP user as being a disruptive editor for being "disruptive"  Please note this from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators&action=edit&section=38

''I have been trying to add assessments to several articles by User:Bwmoll3, but he keeps reverting my edits, so these articles lack an assessment. Can this be considered disruptive editing? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)''

If you review the contributions history of that editor, you will see that it makes these automatic assessments on an ongoing, routine basis, which puts a "checklist" on the article. Now that is all well and good to add a checklist, but it is NOT to "assess" the article as part of adding the checklist. Even in the checklist the IP user states that no review of the article was made. The IP user simply assesses it at "start" class in rapid-fire means. That is not fair to the editors who spend the time to write the article. As a result, over the past several weeks, I've written some articles simply without adding a checklist to the talk page to avoid this kind of nonsense.

Now today I see those articles have been "assessed" by IP user 65.64.177.107 (which may or may not be the same user) as "start", with the same type of checklist that clearly states the article was not read or review d.  These assessments were made again with seconds of each other. I'm simply going to revert them again, and hopefully this IP user will stop.. or maybe have the gaul to report me again for being "disruptive". Well, that's too bad....

I fail to understand why this nonsense is being permitted by the moderators of this group. If a reviewer isn't going to review the article, and this is allowed by users who are not members of our group, or even be bothered enough to register on Wikipedia, it should be asked why this is being allowed to be permitted.. and even condoned, as when i twas raised on the coordinator's talk page, no action was taken a month ago?

Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it is problematic. I believe that we should be asking the ip editor to restrict themselves to adding the banner fields and B Class checklist, but NOT rating any criteria in the checklist. Adding a banner and checklist, but only assessing one B Class criteria (for example), automatically rates the article as Start, even if the class= field is not populated. If no fields in the checklist are rated, the class= field remains "unassessed", and those of us that can assess all criteria against the B Class checklist will see these articles in the task list, and will hopefully properly assess them against all the criteria, thereby coming up with a "fair" assessment of the article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This individual has caused trouble elsewhere (see for instance here). And edits like this are next to useless. While most of the IPs edits are harmless enough, there are enough problematic cases (coupled with all the melodramatics we've seen in the past about the unassessed backlog) that we might need to start applying blocks. The chap doesn't appear to want to listen when one points out he's wrong, and that type of behavior simply isn't tolerable in a collaborative project such as this one. Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that in some cases the IP in question has assessed the article in a case where the checklist was already in place - for instance - The Bushranger One ping only 04:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yesterday, I assessed I Troop Carrier Command, an article Bwmoll wrote and 64.6.124.31 "assessed" twice. The IP editor inserted a blank checklist with the class set to start and only B4 (grammar) assessed (a yes).  When I looked at the article B4 was the only area I assessed as "no" and the article is very close to B class.  65.64.177.107 had participated in the "assessment" of this article as well, so there may well be sockpuppetry involved. I can sympathize with the irritation resulting from an "assessment" that rates four areas as yes/no.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are all these instances of disruptive editing, why aren't there the needed warnings on the talk page? An admin would certainly block the IP if each user did their part to move the bureaucratic wheels. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Chris troutman I honestly don't know how to pursue administrative remedy. I also haven't "suffered" directly per se - only observed what's taking place (not sure if that distinction is salient). I think I also assumed that there was an administrator "w/in" the project who would see this. Oops. So...how to proceed? <b style="color:OliveDrab">J</b><b style="color:Black">Danek</b><b style="color:Olive">00</b><b style="color:Black">7</b><i style="color:OliveDrab">Talk</i> 04:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the incidents mentioned here I've slapped the IP with adequate warnings so the IP has already received the final warning. Next time he/she steps out of line it's straight to the drama boards and it'll be a slam dunk block.  In the meantime I recommend MILHIST change the assessment rules which right now allow "any editor" to make individual assessments (B class and below). The WP Editorial team seems to intone that members of WikiProjects make the assessments though it doesn't say so explicitly.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to progress the report if that becomes necessary. I know my way around the boards. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jdanek, there are plenty of admins in MILHIST (I'm one, for starters, though I'm probably "involved" based on the history here)
 * Part of the issue is that this person uses multiple IPs and doesn't seem to be tied to a single one, which makes a block difficult to enforce. And the disruption isn't significant enough to warrant a rangeblock that would probably hurt other individuals. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If I can add my two cents worth: I relly don't see the point of SabreD's and Bwmoll3's comments. If they truly believe the IP user's assessments are incorrect, then why don't they simply change the assessment? I don't see how continually reverted his/hers edits can do much good. In fact, it would probably take only a little more time to complete the checklist correctly as it would to continually monitor and revert all of his/hers edits.

Looking over the Ip's edit logs, it would seem that he/she is doing some good by adding checklists to templates which lack a list and even adding the template to articles which lack it entirely. It seems to me that this editor would be making all these edits if registered users would simply go through these articles in the first place. We could start by going through articles pertaining to the task force we're a member of.

At the coordinator's talk page, I suggested a drive to add templates and checklists to all MILHIST articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. Doing this would probably be more productive than complaining about all the mistakes that this editor is making. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As much as I hate to say this, I think IP User talk:64.6.124.31 and Wild Wolf are either friends or this is a case of socking. When IP 64 first started disrupting Wikipedia he made a rather snarky comment under Wild Wolf's user name on my talk page Here. If you look at the contribution history of Wild Wolf [ and IP64 [] you can see that they never edit Wikipedia at the same time and Wild Wolf has only started to reply now that IP64 is under a block warning. I think this merits a disregard of Wild Wolf's comments and  needs to go to Admins for a possible sock puppetry case. --Molestash (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also note they use the same syntax commands when assessing articles Example: Wild Wolf's Editing Style and IP 64's Editing Style --Molestash (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * After review of their edit histories, I have opened a Sockpuppet investigation on Wild Wolf and the edits of IP 64Here. Any comments are welcome. --Molestash (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I took a look at your talk page archive, Molestash, and saw that Wild Wolf admits there that they have, at best, a history of permitting alleged-unauthorized use of their account by unknown third-parties who leave snarky comments that they must then disavow, like: "If I really thought I could assess these articles myself, would you really think that I would be putting these articles up on this page? Rather than continually removing the articles, why not actually assess them? (Think there might be a reason why the page is called Requests for Assessment if the articles can't be assessed?)" and then their admission of permitting the alleged-unauthorized use: "Sorry about the previous edit. I had stepped away from my computer for a few minutes and someone must have used my account." ... Err, right. Certainly seems to suggest something could be amiss. I commend you on your diligence in pursuing the matter. <b style="color:OliveDrab">J</b><b style="color:Black">Danek</b><b style="color:Olive">00</b><b style="color:Black">7</b><i style="color:OliveDrab">Talk</i> 20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do as well. I've blocked Wild Wolf for a month, as well as the IPs he has used. I did not block him indefinitely, because I have the hope that now that he has been "caught" he can contribute constructively after the block expires. If not, then he will be blocked indefinitely. --  At am a  頭 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update, Atama. If I may, I have a Question though, for future reference: when one notices a situation like this, is the best thing to do, after reaching out to the individual user and trying to sort things out w/ them directly, to come here and bring it to the attention of other project collaborators, or should you proceed directly to opening a formal complaint via whatever is the appropriate administrative process? I don't think I've ever formally initiated a complaint or been the subject of one, though I certainly have tried to resolve issues or clarify situations by direct communication via talk pages. <b style="color:OliveDrab">J</b><b style="color:Black">Danek</b><b style="color:Olive">00</b><b style="color:Black">7</b><i style="color:OliveDrab">Talk</i> 20:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on the nature of the dispute. If the dispute is due to content concerns, such as a disagreement about what material should be included on an article, or in this case how articles are being assessed, or really any other difference of opinion then you should follow our policy on dispute resolution which includes seeking other opinions via a relevant WikiProject like this one. On the other hand, if there is disruption being performed or any other action that requires administrative intervention then your best bet is to reach out to a noticeboard such as WP:AN3 for edit-warring, WP:SPI for abuse of multiple accounts, WP:AIV for obvious vandalism, or WP:ANI for general disruption not covered by another noticeboard. I definitely commend you for trying to resolve issues by communication, that's what I always try to do in disputes and what everyone should try first. --  At am a  頭 21:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Atama. As I mentioned to another contributor earlier in this discussion thread, I wasn't aware of how those particular administrative issues could be dealt with. So I appreciate your guidance, especially as it appears in the context of the present issue w/ the defective assessments originating from an IP user. Best regards, <b style="color:OliveDrab">J</b><b style="color:Black">Danek</b><b style="color:Olive">00</b><b style="color:Black">7</b><i style="color:OliveDrab">Talk</i> 21:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone up for an Indian Navy sinking?
Hey all, Drmies has posted on my talk page about INS Khukri, which has close-paraphrasing and unreliable source issues (while Russell Phillips has been published, that company has published only his books and one public domain work, making them self-published sources). Is anyone out there interested enough to clean this up? There should be quite a few sources out there; the ship's sinking during India's war with Pakistan caused quite a stir. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

German 2nd Infantry Division and 12th Panzer Division
G'day all, We currently have three articles for the same formation, 2nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), 2nd Infantry Division (Germany) and 12th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht). What is the appropriate title? The last (1940-45)? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, my suggestion would be to merge all content into the last iteration and make the other two redirects. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be the specific direction WP:MILMOS would give. However a bunch of the German World War II divisions are still at their initial rather than final names. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No time like the present, Buckshot! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm more inclined to keep the articles on infantry divisions that later became panzer divisions as separate articles rather than fold them into the panzer division articles because they did participate in Poland, France, etc. as infantry units. But the first two articles listed above should definitely be combined.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

2nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) should be merged into the 12th Panzer Division article. 2nd Infantry Division (Germany) has to be deleted as there were various 2nd Divisions throughout german history. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Sturmvogel on this - yes, the articles are very short now, but eventually, I assume these articles will be fleshed out, and the narrative of the 2nd Division's participation in the Polish and French campaigns should provide a significant amount of prose (not to mention the peacetime period), along with order of battle info and the like. It's probably worth pointing out articles like 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) that show how these divisional articles can be expanded. Parsecboy (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, 2nd Infantry Division (Germany) gets turned into a disambiguation page listing the Imperial German, Reichswehr, Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr divisions, 2nd Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) stays and gets expanded to cover the period from its creation until it became 12th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht). Any objections? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes I think that could work. I've got no objections. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works. IIRC, the other German infantry divisions that this applies to would be 4th, 13th, 16th, 23rd, 27th and 33rd.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sturm, might be time for a clean-up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Kyle J. White, future MoH recipient
I have started a sandbox entry for Sergeant Kyle J. White, due to receive the Medal of Honor from President Obama on May 13th. All are welcomed to contribute; I plan to move the entry into mainspace concurrent with the award ceremony per WP:MILPEOPLE. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 05:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. someone else went ahead and used the crystal ball. That sucks. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
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) 14:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 21/04
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Operation Silver Back. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Draft:Integrated Mission Support. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Invasion of Scandinavia during World War II
New simplistic article Invasion of Scandinavia during World War II includes Iceland, not sure Iceland is considered part of Scandinavia ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Scandinavia states that "Sometimes the term Scandinavia is also incorrectly taken to include Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Finland, on account of their historical association with the Scandinavian countries." So I suppose technically that is not correct - however Invasion of Scandinavia during World War II suggests that it is a common term used to refer to the invasions of Iceland, Denmark et al. so in a way its incorrectness may not necessarily invalidate the article - if people call it that, then that is what we should be writing about in an article, perhaps? S.G.(GH) ping! 21:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The opening line: "The Invasion of Scandinavia is a common name for the German and British invasions in the region of Scandinavia during World War II..." is not backed up by any citations given; and does NOT seem to be the "common name" of the event(s). Also, "Scandinavia," by definition, does not historically include Iceland.  I would suggest, perhaps, moving this page to Invasion of the Nordic countries during World War II or something similar.  If not, perhaps a merge to World War II in Europe?   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 21:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As an "Invasion" referrers to a nation aggressively, and unwantingly entering the territory of another, the answer would be "No", due to the fact that both Iceland and the Faroe Islands were not invaded by Nazi Germany. Iceland also, is not considered a art of Scandinavia. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, the hits on Google Books refer to the potential for an "invasion of Scandinavia" by the warring parties, not the actual real-life landings themselves. Plus, Iceland is not Scandinavia, nor is Finland (which is depicted on the article's map). I've personally never heard of this "common name" used in the way the article does. Note also, that not a single one of the sources listed in the article use the name "Invasion of Scandinavia". This article is simplistic nonsense. Manxruler (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. The German invasion of Denmark and Norway and the British invasion of Iceland were separate operations, and lumping them together like this isn't sensible. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto - how about cutting it down to just Scandinavia during World War II which fits in with other WWII type articles. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That would take a lot of rewriting and adding of info about the various aspects of the war in Scandinavia. As it is now, this article can't be "Scandinavia during World War II". In addition to the constructed nature of the the "common name", the descriptions of pretty much all aspects of the various invasions are incorrect. For example, apparently, in the case of Norway, "...first, there was very little resistance". Well, I'd wager that some 1,200+ dead German and Norwegian servicemen would disagree somewhat with that description of the beginning of the invasion. Plus, plus, plus. And which definition of Scandinavia should then be used? Manxruler (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, we pretty much only have three options with regards to this article:
 * 1. Delete it. 2. Redirect the title somewhere (there's basically nothing of the content worth salvaging) or 3. Rename it "Scandinavia during World War II" and use that title to write an entirely new, properly written, article on that subject (as in option 2, keeping nothing of the current article content). Manxruler (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * we have a very poor article and I support Manxruler's suggestion #3 (rename and totally rewrite). Note that we do have a useful article Military operations in the Nordic countries during World War II, with a bibliography I made. Note that Scandinavia in WW2 is a very good topic. (see eg  Battles for Scandinavia (Time-Life World War II #28) (1981);   Scandinavia During the Second World War by Henrik S. Nissen (1983).  As for Iceland, it was part of Denmark at the time and I think it can well be included (it does not fit elsewhere).  There is an excellent survey by Olli Vehvilainen, Olli. "Scandinavian Campaigns." in A Companion to World War II (2012) ed. by Thomas W. Zeiler and Daniel M. DuBois: vol 1 pp 208-21; it includes Finland and is strong on the foreign language sources. Rjensen (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If Iceland is included, then so must the Faeroe Island, and Greenland (both Danish, then and now). There are loads of good sources on the subject, only time and effort is needed. Personally, I'll be swamped with work related to my doctoral degree the next few weeks. Manxruler (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't support deleting it, or changing the article to "Scandinavia in World War II". I think we could change it to "Invasions/Campaigns in Nordic Countries during World War II" or something of the sorts.  As far as the lack of content, isn't that sort of the goal of  Wikipedia?  To start an article, and have other people help build on it?Cnd474747 (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A few things.  Re-do the map with Iceland in Grey.   Also I would remove Sweden as well, since it was recognized as neutral both by Nazi Germany and the Allies.   It's just confusing, given the title of the article.    Also, delete the "Invasion of Iceland" section.   Iceland and the Faroes were occupied by Great Britain, although I believe there was an arrangement for that with the Danish Government-In-Exile.   The US moved into Iceland in 1941 to relieve the British so they could return their forces back to England with the consent of the Danish Government.   Those aren't "invasions".. moreso "Occupations".   Now Nazi Germany did establish small weather stations in Greenland (which were quickly removed by the Allies) but any Nazi forces outside of Norway and Denmark were small and quickly eliminated; so other than minor mentions, are irrelevant.  Just some thoughts  Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The existing navbox Template:Campaignbox Scandinavia in World War II which although its title links to Military operations in the Nordic countries during World War II, is piped as "Nordic countries in World War II" and that seems an eminently sensible title for an article that presumably is meant to tie together military operations, the occupation situation, industrial activities and social ones - the sort of thing that is linked in the aforementioned navbox. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is redundant and by treating these separate events under one heading it is also misleading. Events in Finland and northern Norway were connected, but primarily at the end of the war. Article should be deleted (or integrated with Military operations in the Nordic countries during World War II).--Erik den yngre (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Cnd474747: The goal of Wikipedia is not to create articles on "common names" which do not exist as such.
 * Bwmoll3: The consent bit is incorrect. There was never a "Danish Government-In-Exile", as the Danes capitulated on 9 April 1940, and made a deal with the Germans.
 * I think that, at some future point, there should be written a proper article titled "Nordic countries in World War II". When that can be done, is another question. The article in question is not a useful substitute for that future article. Manxruler (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Manxruler: Since that's the one thing everyone is focussing on, I'll change it. Didn't realize it was such a huge problem.Cnd474747 (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the suggestion of a new article on "Nordic countries in World War II". On Iceland: it was an invasion and was NOT approved ahead of time by the governments of Denmark or Iceland. It came as a complete surprise to both after Iceland insisted on its complete neutrality. That's an "invasion". Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Rjensen At no point in the article did I say neither Iceland nor Denmark agreed to the invasion. I stated they met little resistance.Cnd474747 (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's compromise for now and "userfy" the article to Cnd474747's namespace so he can work on it to address concerns. The article has been posted to AfD, where I suspect it would die, but the request was not properly completed – so he may be able to salvage it (though I think wp:TNT is probably best as the article now stands).  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 22:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * p.s.: There's also the new Draft-space where this article scope could, perhaps, find traction. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 22:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I started Nordic countries in World War II which so far is just disambiguation and bibliography. Rjensen (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cnd474747: That's not all that's problematic with the article, which should be pretty clear from both the discussion here, and my reply to your message earlier.
 * User:GenQuest I disagree with userfying it. Doing that would imply that there is something worth salvaging, when there isn't.
 * Rjensen: I like that idea too. It should cover the main issues relating too all the Nordic countries during the Second World War. Quite a substantial undertaking. Perhaps we should rather have a sandbox somewhere and work on it over time? Manxruler (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency on Howard W. Gilmore
Information inconsistency on Howard W. Gilmore. Is he the first or second submarine personnel to receive a Medal of Honor? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Howard_W._Gilmore = "the second man of the submarine force to be so decorated."
 * Captain_goes_down_with_the_ship = "the first submariner to receive this award."
 * Gilmore was second. Henry Breault was the first submariner to receive the award, although Breault's was neither in combat nor posthumous.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

ACR needing one more review
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hans Philipp has been open since 11 March and has two supports (one is mine). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Levy (soldier)‎
Request for assistance. I substantially improved the underlying article Albert Levy (soldier), and (foolishly) thought I might be able to get it qualified via a 5X expansion for a WP:DYK. we are very close, but my gas in on E and I could use some fresh eyes on this effort. I know that it was a tall order, and I have only myself to blame. But that being said, a helping hand would be sincerely appreciated. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have some suggestions for further modifications on this article. Here.  Feel free to use them.  Remember to paraphrase, as those are all direct quotes.  Believe me whan I say that I think I'd mined about all there was to get for the cited sources in the article.  have at it and best wishes. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helping hands. Its big enough . . . <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedias needed to be listed
Bibliography of encyclopedias, Warfare <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Axis Europa Magazine
G'day all, I have noticed a couple of article being created relying on Axis Europa Magazine. From what I've seen, it doesn't look reliable. Anyone got history they can point to where this has been discussed previously? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's definitely not a reliable source, as is the case with everything published by that company. The book The Myth of the Eastern Front makes a strong case against this company being a publisher of reliable material. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspected as much. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Myth of the Eastern Front is a polemic and hardly an unbiased source in and of itself. I'd judge each book or article on their own merits for each specific cite, just like you'd have to do with any of the Waffen-SS unit histories, whether written by veteran of the unit or by fanbois. Munoz has covered massacres by Waffen-SS and Polizei troops in Poland and Russia, so he's hardly an apologist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't say that I'm a fan of the book (more on the grounds of lazy scholarship and a lack of focus by the authors rather than it being a polemic), but its assessment of sources has always been on the mark in my experience. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Photography at the Tank Museum, Dorset, England
Dear MilHist, we have some complementary off peak tickets for the Tank Museum in Dorset. Any photographers from this project are welcome to apply for a ticket by emailing me their snail mail address. To b more practical, we have started to compile a wishlist of exhibits there that you would like to have photographs of. Participation from this wikiProject would be welcome, but ideally we want a list of things that might be on display there. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Added a request for the unusual Mark IX tank they have an example of, which we don't have a decent image for. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Naval tactics c. 1850-1950
I would appreciate some input over at talk:Naval tactics in the Age of Steam. This article has some serious problems regarding its scope and OR and could use some input from WP:MILHIST contributors.

Peter Isotalo 13:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Invasions
What do you think of Category:Invasions? Does it denote something useful that is not in, say, Category:Military operations by type subs, or is it CfD material? trespassers william (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't invasion also denote the mass migration of peoples and influx into an area where other ethnic groups currently reside? -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, the cat doesn't use it that way. No cat should exist only to conflate them. trespassers william (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now at CfD. trespassers william (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The Italian military contribution needs more emphasis and less bias.
Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor, but I have been a long time fan of Wikipedia and use it as my first port of call when undertaking research. I think this applies to millions of users world-wide. The Wiki phenomena is just that: a phenomena. I greatly appreciate and esteem it as I myself use it in my teaching field, which covers the Renaissance but also 19th and 20th century Europe.

However, to my dismay, I have notice that many articles dealing with Italy's involvement in WW2, are less than fair and some of them, quite biased. For example, when the Italians "surrender", it is described as an "abject surrender". When Italians retreat, it is often described as "a rout". Such descriptions and expressions go against Wikipedia principles of balance, neutral POV, impartial tone, cherry picking, Anglo-American bias, emphasis upon the negatives while downplaying the positive aspects, frequent use of biased sources while ignoring other sources that provide balance, expressions of doubt, and the making of gratuitous and necessary assumptions.

I could go on for a few more lines, but I think I've made my point.

The Italian Army was a junior partner in the Axis Alliance and what it did achieve, was simply that. It achieved what it could with the limited resources at its disposal, as did other Axis partners like Romania and Hungary. It is grossly unfair to continually compare it to much stronger Nazi Germany. It's gains were modest but should not be disparaged. However, I and others have noticed a distinct manner and style of dealing with Italy's involvement in the war, whereby its defeats are magnified and its successes are ignored or disparaged. There is a tradition involved here, a certain historiography, that is slanted and biased. One would have to be tone deaf and half blind not to see it.

This type of bias will only damage Wikipedia's reputation in the long run and lead to a negative reaction and possible back-lash from the public and other Wikipedians.

I urge all members to join me in opening up this discussion and rectifying the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnalesSchool (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

AnnalesSchool (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would ask, considering this lofty goal, why it appears you are using a single source to usurp any point that goes against your position.
 * For example, your recent edit (diff) to the Italian invasion of France article. You have replaced quotes from one historian and from the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, which speak negatively of the Italian progress in that campaign, with a single source that speaks highly of them. I am no expert in the Italian invasion of France, but surely this is the exact opposite of what you are claiming above. You have replaced, what you perceive to be, bias with just another kind. What evidence is there that the previously source used was outright incorrect? Did Ciano never make such negative remarks? Without something concrete to show that the source used was stating outright lies, one should except - considering your remarks - for you to not be cherrypicking and abide by the NPOV guidelines by displaying both the negative and the positive, not merely replacing one for another.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My position is simply to introduce more balance and neutrality and fair play. Many of the articles show a bias against the Italian military involvement in nearly all spheres of combat. I have used a single source as an example, and even that one was dismissed out of hand. But there are at least a dozen others like Sadkovich I can produce at a later stage and introduce gradually, historians who are more even-handed than the earlier writers.

The problem lies with your example of Ciano. Yes, he probably made that remark, but why include it? For what purpose? To make Mussolini look bad? There was another from Roosevelt, the stab in the back quote. Why include that particular quote gratuitously, as if Hitler, or for that matter Roosevelt or Churchill themselves, have never done their own back-stabbing.

The fact is that the Italians had a small window of opportunity to invade France, and they took it. No one could foresee how quickly France would fall. So comments like: "Much of June was lost as the Italian armed forces prepared for an invasion. But, even after additional time for preparations, the hastily-prepared Italian forces were not at their prime." This sentence doesn't quite add up. If Italy declared war on France on June 10, well that's nearly half of June lost already. So what? Italy should have declared war sooner and because it didn't, it merely wasted time? And even after additional time, the Italian army was still "not a their prime"? Who's to say they weren't "at their prime?" And so the article carries on in this vein for much of the time. Nearly every paragraph takes a swipe or makes an innuendo against the Italian military, its generals and of course, that old favorite, Mussolini the "clown", the "back-stabber". And so it goes on and on, this disparaging, negative, non-impartial tone, right through it and many other articles like it. eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_invasion_of_France

It is also as if many of the Wiki editors who write about the Italian involvement in the war, actually dislike the Italians, or are contemptuous of them, and without even being aware of it because it is so ingrained in them, try to put the Italians in a bad light. Sure, the Ciano source is correct: that's what Ciano said! Sure, the Roosevelt quote about Mussolini being a back-stabber, is probably correct. But my question is: why did the editor include those quotes?

Finally, at the end of the day, the Italians occupied a slice of France as far as Menton. They invaded on the 20th and by the 25th, the French asked for an armistice with the Italians. In my book, that's not bad going. Did they fail because they didn't reach Paris? Nooooo! Did they want to? Noooo! If the French did not surrender when they did, then the Italians would have kept up the pressure until they did. But then you will say: "But wait a minute! It was the Germans who defeated France. Not the Italians!" But no one is claiming that. Did the Italians succeed in their limited objective? Yes, they did. Could they have done better? Possibly, but historians are not here to speculate or compare or to make assumptions.

The job of the historian is simply to report the facts. And these are the facts. Italy invaded France on the 20th June. There was fighting, chaos, set-backs, etc. On the 25th June, France sues for peace. Italy is in possession of a slice of France as far as Menton. It then occupied Corsica and the Alpes-Maritmes.

Voila! End of story! What Ciano said, what Roosevelt said, what the author of the article thinks should have happened, is irrelevant!

AnnalesSchool (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you stand for neutrality and non-bias, as long as anything against your opinion is removed because it is "irrelevant"? This is pretty ironic considering your claim to lecture in such areas and your continued simplified utterance about the method used by historians. I would wager, if I was to go read a book on the subject, a professional historian would include such quotes from Ciano (due to him being part of the regime) and then provide their own analysis on the subject. This again raises the question: why are you removing material you disagree with (you have already conceded that Ciano probably did state so)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's somewhat disingenuous to present the timeline as "Italy invaded France on the 20th June...and by the 25th, the French asked for an armistice with the Italians" when in fact the Italians didn't cross the border until the 21st...and France had already asked for an armistice on the 20th.
 * Nevertheless, we write our articles based on what reliable sources say. If a number of reputable historians are critical of the Italian performance in WWII, then that viewpoint must be included. And if you think historians "are not here to speculate or compare" and should "simply...report the facts", you have no idea what historians actually do. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Enigma and Parsecboy. There are a large number of excellent books and journal articles on Italy in WWII that provide neutral treatment. We use reliable sources, and the articles should reflect what they say, not our personal opinions. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd note that the OP here has adding obvious nonsense such as a claim that Italy overran "much of Yugoslavia and Greece" "With the assistance of German forces" in 1941 (the Italian invasion of Greece was a fiasco, and Italian forces had very little involvement in the invasion of Yugoslavia). It's hard to see this as anything but a blatant attempt to distort history. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As Nick noted above, the Annales school itself is biased. The user probably got her/his name from the actual Annales School which is devoted to pushing and research achievements of Latin Languaged cultures especially France. The edit history shows a similar thought. Although French and Italian sources should be used, the author appears to want to rewrite history based on their perspective. --Molestash (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem of bias, fairness and lack of neutral point of view when dealing with Italy.
I can only reiterate again the blatant Anglo-American bias against the Italian involvement in the war. I think the main problem lies in relying too much on sources and so-called "historians" who are themselves biased and unfair in their coverage of the Italian war effort.

I will cut and paste what I have already written in the Wiki article the "Italian Invasion of France" in the Talk Section.

William Shirer's work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'' was published in 1960. It has been criticized by many historians as having "four major failings": a crude understanding of German history; a lack of balance, leaving important gaps; no understanding of a modern totalitarian regime; and ignorance of current scholarship of the Nazi period" and "not sufficiently scholarly nor sufficiently well written to satisfy more academic demands".''

The problem with the author, William Shirer (edit) Therefore, its utility is problematic and should be used with care. The work itself is old and out-dated. It is certainly biased and lacks an historian's balance. I recommend using more recent, up to date research. Unfortunately for many of these types of Wikipedia articles, authors like Shirer are over-used and relied upon.

In this article he has quoted Count Ciano as describing Mussolini as "the strutting Italian dictator had been quickly deflated—all the more so because of the miserable showing of the Italian army against a handful of French troops." This has a ring of falsity. I have my doubt if the Italian foreign minister at the time would have actually written this down. Therefore, I believe it should be removed from this article because a) there is a question of reliability and b) it does not add anything to the article itself, which is about the Italian incursion into France.

The Unreliability of The Count Ciano Diary[edit] The diary by Count Ciano is considered by many historians as an unreliable source. The diary was re-edited by Ciano to avoid prosecution by the Allies, to put him in a better light against Mussolini. Furthermore, there is a question about the OSS and British Intelligence having altered the diary substantially. Care must be used when quoting from it. In my opinion, it should not be used. Therefore, I believe the quote attributed to Ciano, should be removed for two reasons: its reliability and secondly, it really does not add anything to this article.

The neutrality of authors like Major-General Stanley Playfair, can also be questioned. Why? It's fairly obvious, isn't it? Major-General in the British Army? And yet, in one article, he was quoted extensively, also as much as 50% in the citations. But still, he isn't as bad as many other authors that are relied upon for so much nonsense, misinformation, half-truths and harebrained, lazy conjectures and conclusions and blindly repeating ad nauseum, what their predecessors have written, such as J. R. Thackrah, Liddell Hart, Knox, Denis Mack Smith and so so many others. Too many actually.

Can I be permitted to make a few of suggestions?

1. We delete all the articles written on Wikipedia dealing with Italy's involvement in WW2 so far, and completely start over again with far more accurate, more recent and more balanced scholarly works. We avoid the pseudo and amateur historians like Shirer and Bradford who have more in common with "populist" historians than scholarly, peer-reviewed ones. One suggestion I have for you all is to start exploring academic databases like Jstor and Proquest, and extract well researched, peer-reviewed articles about the war, there. If you are going to use secondary sources, then use better quality, more recent ones. Avoid just regurgitating the same old myths and stories, like how Italian tanks were useless, how Italian officers didn't know what they were doing, how incompetent Mussolini was, or continually harping on about "the putative military incompetence and cowardice of the Italians, who are depicted as being overly fond of luxury and having little stomach for such manly activities as battle."

2. We bring in many more non-Anglo writers such as Mario Cervi, De Felice, Alexander Papagos, and more balanced and better qualified Anglo scholars. And, depending on the theater of operation, if it is in Greece, then use more Greek writers. If it involves the Italian incursion into France, then use more French sources. Whatever, but I implore you all, to try to wean yourselves off Anglo writers, especially those who are obviously biased and dismissive of the Italians and have a particular axe to grind. I know it will be difficult, partly because Anglo-Americans can generally only speak one language - English - (and are thus considered in Europe as only partially literate)- but also because it is difficult and expensive to obtain foreign books and journals.

Wikipedia has several pages on the problems of bias and lack of neutrality and suppression of information, etc. I don't need to go through them with you again as I am sure you have all read them fully. However, even though Wiki's policies and guidelines are quite clear, I am still very surprised and dismayed that time and time again I come across articles that continue to show bias and mindless quoting of sources that are themselves suspect, such as, for example, the Ciano Diaries. I'm not saying that such sources should not be used, but they have to be used carefully. I was amused when one Wiki editor proclaimed: "Yes, but that is what he wrote, so it must be true!" I could only smile at such naivety.

Look, I know you guys (and gals?) are trying to do the best you can, devoting many unpaid voluntary hours to write Wiki articles about the war and all things military. Perhaps some of you are still old enough to have been involved in that terrible war, or had fathers and grandfathers involved. But I suspect, for all your good intentions, you are not trained historians. So you will fall into the habit of picking up a book like William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and because it confirms all your previous views and attitudes and prejudices against Germany and Italy, you will take just about every word this man has written as the gospel truth. And yet, historians and scholars, are highly critical of Shirer's work, claiming among other things, that it perpetuates the same old standard myths, and even makes new ones. Now bear in mind, scholars were critical of it when it saw the light of day in 1961, so you can imagine how much more critical and dismissive they are of it today, when research into the war and Germany's and Italy's involvement is much better understood than it was back in the 1950's and 1960's.

I know that my suggestion to delete all the articles and start from scratch again, will not be take up. Too many vested interests and egos are involved here. However, I do ask one little favor: Can you please, please, please try to remain as neutral, as impartial and as balanced and fair a stance and detachment as possible when dealing with Italy's wartime involvement, and that is including Mussolini too. No, he wasn't a clown. He wasn't a dago, eye-tie bombastic imbecile. No, he wasn't Hitler's pet, or troublemaker or mill-stone around his neck, or a factor in Germany's defeat! If anything, one could argue very convincingly that the Germans let Italy down badly, that it betrayed its ally,Italy. Mussolini made an agreement with Hitler not to start war until 1943 to give Italy time to properly build up its military strength. Hitler agreed and swore he never would. Well, we know the rest. So the defeats suffered by the Italians due to lack of proper military hardware and logistics during the war, can be fairly and reasonably laid at the feet of the Germans themselves.

No what I ask is very reasonable and minimal: that when you describe Italy surrendering, please refrain from writing "abject surrender". Please refrain from using such words as "fiasco", "ridiculous", "useless", etc,. These do not demean the Italian military and Mussolini at all: they really demean the writer and ultimately, the reputation of Wikipedia itself.

Is my request reasonable?

AnnalesSchool (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC) AnnalesSchool (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll agree that Playfair is not exactly unbiased re the Italians, but I'd not support throwing him out entirely. And that's a problem for much of the scholarship pre-1975. The thing that editors need to be careful with going too far overboard in the other direction. James Sadkovich is a perfect example of a historian who makes claims for Italian effectiveness, success, etc. well beyond what the evidence can support. And the problem with using historians from the nations concerned in an article is that they can be biased in their own country's favor. This is not to say that all such historians are, but it happens often enough that editors need to be wary. Forex, I'd not trust a Cold War-era Soviet historian writing on the Eastern Front for an unbiased account, nor that of a German general writing during the same time. Doesn't mean that certain facts can't be used in an article, but larger conclusions, etc. from the historian are best avoided. Similarly, many American historians are biased against Montgomery and British historians often favor him. This is more true of older works, but there are still lingering traces in recent books and articles.
 * Regarding the Italians in particular, I have no problem using Cervi's Hollow Legions, Sweet's Iron Arm, or Walker's Iron Hulls, Iron Hearts as sources on the performance of the Italian Army and Vincent O'Hara on the Italian Navy in general, but higher-level accounts are a bit more difficult to assess.
 * You do your cause no favor by asserting that too many egos and vested interests are involved to replace the articles related to the Italians in WW2; the real problem is energy and time. Ordinarily I'd suggest that you fix these problems yourself since you identified the issue, but I have no confidence in your own neutrality given your extraordinary edits to the accounts of the Italians in France and Greece. The Italian Army performed exceedingly poorly in both campaigns and any attempt to portray their activities otherwise demonstrates that you're in the same class as Sadkovich. Granted, individual units may have performed adequately at times, but they were more the exception than the rule in those campaigns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One should note that the official histories authored by Playfair are, as far as I am aware, among the most highly rated of the British official histories. I have seen, during my various studies, very little criticism of his work when say compared to Ellis (who authored the ones on the Normandy campaign and which are heavily criticized by historians). Not to mention, I do recall Playfair noting at several points throughout his work about the bravery etc of Italian soldiers. So to dismiss him, purely on the grounds that he is from the British military, is foolhardy at best considering - from my own memory - I don't recall him actually laying anything on thick in either direction.
 * To engage the straw man in AnnalesSchool argument, the article he appears to be discussing when mentioning Playfair being overly cited would appear to be Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II. An article in need of revamping and additional citations, of course. However, Playfair has largely been used to cite information regarding British intentions in the region and when he hasn't, it has been to cite common knowledge that is not really presented in an overly bias-way one way or another. So we have a source, that is not shrouded in controversy, being used to cite simple facts. I don't really see that is evidence of lack of neutrality towards Italians or deserves the various insults thrown its way.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I wrote one article on the North African campaign, Battle of Bardia. I gathered material for a follow up on the capture of Tobruk, but never got around to writing it. I used Playfair as an authority on the British, not the Italians. There was some complaint from FAC reviewers about an over-reliance on English and German language sources, so I went to the War Memorial and translated the relevant chapter of the Italian official history. Like its  British counterpart, I found it fair and honest about the Italian defeat, but not analytical. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I find that most of the sources I look at are more convincing as descriptions and that it's the explanations which don't always stand the test of time, so I write more description than most and put the explanation in a separate section ("Analysis") in a chronological or thematic list of the schools of thought. I find that this helps overcome the often merited sneer, that military history is a mediocre subject for mediocre scholars, which may explain an apparent paradox, that writers who are most contemptuous of the OH 1914-1918 are the ones who swallow its most glaring errors whole. Annales might be right but the reasons for older material being questionable are often the reasons for newer material being just as suspect. I suspect that Annales is painting with a broad brush and hope that he/she writes some material with details from the newer sources so that I can see for myself if the older ones are obsolete. I've found that for the Western Front 1915-1917 it isn't the age of the source that determines its credibility but whether it's commercial history, academic history or antiquarianism.Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "We delete all the articles written on Wikipedia dealing with Italy's involvement in WW2 so far, and completely start over again." - I can't take you seriously, and I don't know why anyone else is. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please remember that if the sources are biased, that's regrettable, but then Wikipedia must reflect that bias - Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In addition, please do not make blanket statements such as "Anglo-Americans can generally only speak one language - English - (and are thus considered in Europe as only partially literate)" - these can be taken as your own bias, are citation needed, and can be considered by some as a borderline attack on other editors, and your comment that because it confirms all your previous views and attitudes and prejudices against Germany and Italy, you will take just about every word this man has written as the gospel truth is also a statement that is assuming bad faith against other editors. Please assume good faith. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I do apologize if I have come across overly strongly and I do assume good faith in most of the editors, but not all. But I was taken aback and shocked by some of the biased content I read in several of the articles dealing with Italy's involvement in the war. I was dismayed by some of the references and quotations used and the inferences and conjectures made. I took it upon myself to read and understand Wiki policies and guidelines, and noticed that not all the editors were following them.


 * I don't claim to be an expert on the Second World War and my contribution to this or that battle or maneuver would be negligible. There are many more editors out there who know much more than I and in far greater detail. Still, I will attempt to contribute in some small way to the articles dealing primarily with Italy's involvement, as I have access to scholarly journals and articles due to my work. If I feel a comment or statement about Italy's performance to be unfair and unkind, I will bring it up and it can be discussed on the talk page. I will produce my evidence for the change and hope to convince enough editors of its merits where change is needed. I am not going to write detailed articles about particular battalions, squadrons and tactics, because I am not an expert in this and I too am pressed for time due to family and work commitments.


 * You know, 1st year university undergraduates are forbidden by their lecturers and professors to quote from Wikipedia. Their reasoning is that the articles are generally unreliable and poorly sourced. Any student who quotes from Wiki in their essay will get a big red cross and a reprimand from the marker.
 * However, in private, I know many of my students will secretly go straight to Wikipedia to get an over-view of the topic and follow the footnotes and external links. So it is important that students are correctly directed because Wikipedia is often their first port of call in research. This goes for high school students as well; but at university level, it's even more important.


 * So I will involve myself as an editor and will not delete and repeat the mistakes I made in the past, but consult first with the previous editor regarding improvements and corrections to the article.


 * All the best and happy editing!!!

AnnalesSchool (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm encouraged to read that undergrads are barred from quoting Wikipaedia; all we have to do now is stop them referring to commercial history and antiquarian texts and the buggers will have to look at sources with some scholarly rigour. (Actually a decent Wikipaedia article wouldn't shame a third year (old style), so it's understandable if lecturers don't want them paraphrased.)

or
Dear all,

For a while now, I've been changing template:surrendered to template:pow  in the infobox of battles when I come across them - it seemed logical and more correct to me at the time, but I have since realized that there is no guidance about the use whatsoever. MILMOS argues against pictures in the infobox, but beyond that there's very little. Personally, I prefer the template and see no difference between them (when used for people, cf. Battle of Berlin) but would it be possible to reach some sort of consensus about it here which can be added to MILMOS for future? Brigade Piron (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see one big difference between them; surrendering does not automatically make someone a PoW. I'm not making a comment on the suitability of either template here, but prisoners of war are not the same as a surrendering. Of course, most surrendering parties do become PoWs (even as far back as medieval battles), but many may be released from the battlefield or even executed, without ever reaching the PoW stage. Ranger Steve   Talk  10:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That occurred to me too. Though I do like the POW template. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And one could become a POW without surrendering if captured while unconscious. No easy answer. Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  13:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But is that distinction actually worth making in the infobox? Of course, there's nothing to stop it being included in the text. Perhaps I'm unimaginative, but it seems to me that it is impossible to surrender without being a POW (at least temporarily) or dead (in which case template:KIA is still appropriate)...Brigade Piron (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is surrendered status in the infobox in the first place? They're supposed to be quickie summaries. Having to add symbols that are plainly ambiguous is a good indication you should stop adding details.
 * Peter Isotalo 23:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have to agree whole-heartedly with Peter immediately above.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 00:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We have killed in action in infoboxes for battles, for the commanders and their fates. S.G.(GH) ping! 01:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes this kind of notation no less oblique. Just don't cram the infoboxes with too much info. They're supposed to be overviews, not crib sheets. Improve the lede and work on the section headings instead.
 * Peter Isotalo 02:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

HMS/HMCS
See WT:SHIPS where a discussion on the use of HMS and HMCS in infoboxes is underway -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Old and new unit names
I can't find anything in WP:MILMOS about something I wonder about, if a unit has changed its name, and the old name is more known than the new? <small style="color:green">walk <i style="color:green">victor falk</i><i style="color:green">talk</i> 16:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Nevermind, I managed to miss the next-to-last para. <small style="color:green">walk <i style="color:green">victor falk</i><i style="color:green">talk</i> 16:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Naming consistency – naval guns
I've noticed that there's a lot of inconsistency in naming, with regard to the use of hyphens and spacing of dashes and units amd suffixing with "gun" or "naval gun". For example, BL 12 inch Mk XI – XII naval gun but BL 9.2 inch gun Mk IX–X, or QF 4 inch Mk V naval gun vs. QF 3-inch 20 cwt, or QF 12-pounder 12 cwt naval gun vs. QF 12 pounder 18 cwt naval gun. And sometimes the inconsistency is within the article - for example QF 4 inch naval gun Mk I – III which begins "QF 4-inch gun ...". Other inconsistencies are, for example, Canon de 138 mm Modèle 1927 vs. Canon de 138 mm Modèle 1910 naval gun vs. 203mm/50 Modèle 1924 gun, or 305mm/45 Modèle 1906 gun vs. Canon de 305 mm Modèle 1893/96 gun. Is there any consensus on naming patterns? Based on general MoS principles, I would expect to see a hyphen between the number and the unit of size or weight, and an unspaced endash between Mk numbers. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there's no consensus (at least as far as I've seen) - this also affects German guns, for what it's worth (see for instance Category:Naval guns of Germany). One thing bears mentioning though - hyphens should only be used when the unit of measure is spelled out (so it should be BL 12-inch Mk XI – XII naval gun, but not Canon de 138-mm Modèle 1910 naval gun. I agree that we need to figure something out though. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 28/04
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The 1920 Royal Navy Mission to Enzeli. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good enough for remaining issues to be fixed in the mainspace, mainly slight copy edit, paragraph tweaks and the like. Some more refs and context perhaps, and improved categories. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking for contributors for The Bugle
Hi all, Ian and I are on the look out for editors who are interested in submitting an opinion article or similar for upcoming editions of the project's newsletter, The Bugle. We haven't run an op-ed since December last year, and it would be great to keep this feature going. Articles can be of any length, and on pretty much any topic that takes your fancy - you can write about your experiences developing or maintaining an article, your views on Wikipedia editing, relevant off-Wiki activities, or other subjects which might be of interest to the project. There's a list of previous op-eds at WikiProject Military history/News/Archives which might be of interest, but please don't feel constrained by this. If you're interested in contributing something, you can post it via WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom or contact Ian or I, and we'd both be pleased to answer any questions or provide feedback on draft articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of the WWII infobox
There is currently a discussion going on here about whether to include client and puppet states in the combatants section of the infobox, or whether to include countries at all. Since this is probably our most visible article, it would behoove us to have as wide input as possible. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Standardization of "Equipment" Pages
Recently, I've viewed many different "Equipment of the _____ Armed Forces" pages. The formatting is all over the place. Some pages use bullets, some use lists, some use tables. There is no standard format. Thus, I've taken it upon myself to work on a few major pages and try to create a standard table format. My edits can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The US Navy and US Army pages are perfect examples of how the Equipment pages should look. There is still much more to be done with similar pages. I would appreciate if this could be added to an open tasks list. Cheers, Stratocaster27t@lk 19:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Modern equipment of the British Army looks subtly better, though there is duplication of the section header in the second row of the table for no apparent good reason (table titles -if present - ought to be above the column names) but in both cases the pics could do with reducing a bit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is a very good page. However, I would move the images to the right of the names, and reduce the "Notes" sections quite a bit. Stratocaster27t@lk 21:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The notes are a little rambling and don't give some more pertinent information like date of entry into service, but no reason not to give content. If I was going to move picture it would be further to the right.

My general starting point is to convert the information to a table (if not already in table format) as below:

The Model should be the name designated to the weapon by the force using it. Images should be directly to the right of the name. For artillery, mortars, and firearms, Caliber (or calibre) should be in "9mm" format, not "9-mm". Type is self-explanatory, as is country-of-origin. Details should be brief. Every other table row should be darkened for ease of reading. Stratocaster27t@lk 19:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it also list what type of cartridge it uses, not just the calibre? (also "calibre" vs "caliber" how do we divide which English-variant to use on pages that currently do not use one?) -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, unless a certain weapon is mandated by the military it is used by to only use a certain cartridge, the intercangeablity of cartridges within a caliber is assumed. As for Caliber/Calibre...perhaps countries that use such spelling should employ them on pages related to them.Stratocaster27t@lk 02:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would presume some cartridges are overly long, or incorrect priming (ie. pinfire/rimfire/centrefire), or wrong propellant, etc. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All rifle/pistol cartridges aren't the same even if they're the same caliber. Use the format in the ammunition pages 9 × 18 or whatever. And, by MOS, a non-breaking space needs to be between size and the unit, forex 9 mm .--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would give the name of the weapon that the nation uses, but if its a weapon commonly known by another name then that should appear in the first column too. Per the principle of least surprise on links. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move notification
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Moslem militia, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

T:WPMA listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:WPMA&#32;to the template Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.
 * Discussion was closed as "no consensus", but in deference to points made during the discussion, I've moved the new redirect to T:WPMHA, and the old redirects (mentioned in the discussion) still work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme (disambiguation)
Recent edits: advertising?Keith-264 (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably; I've reverted because the upcoming film has a different title and doesn't need disambiguation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 30/04
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MV Tulagi Sinking and Raft Drift. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like I'm a day behind! Ha ha, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred John Hughes, MM.. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ship grounding infobox
The infobox on 1950 USS Missouri grounding incident is a bare transclusion of infobox. Is there a better box to use, other than perhaps infobox event? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 02/05
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rembrandt C. Robinson. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, a good one. --S.G.(GH) ping! 14:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Napoleon class Ship-of-the-line. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

nl:NAVO-hoofdkwartier_Cannerberg NATO War HQ
Do we have any Dutch translators available? This deserves some attention. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Secret war HQ now visible on Google Street View! Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Drmies might be able to handle it, or point to someone who can. Intothatdarkness 14:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Edward William Pakenham
I just created a stubby article on an Irish politician, Edward William Pakenham, who was also a British Army officer killed in Crimea. I don't have any good sources on military topics, so I wondered if anyone would like to see if they can tweak that side of his career.

Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You can get this title via interlibrary loan:


 * Cole, John William. Memoirs of British Generals Distinguished During the Peninsular War. London: R. Bentley, 1856. PMML doesn't have a copy, but many other libraries own it.  It has also been digitized by the HathiTrust.

The Pritzker Military Museum & Library is a Wikipedia GLAM institution. Any Military History project participant should feel free to search our holdings online at pritzkermilitary.org for use in editing Wikipedia articles.TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

2012 Benghazi attack
A discussion has begun in order to gain a consensus on whether to include or exclude material involving the CIA and weapons smuggling in the article. Please weigh in on the discussion at the talk page. This may also be a good time to reassess the rating on the article. Thank you.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Zur Geschichte der Ordnungspolizei 1936-1945
G'day all, does anyone have access to Zur Geschichte der Ordnungspolizei 1936-1945 by Georg Tessin, Hans-Adolf Neufeldt & Jürgen Huck? Pages 68-71 apparently have information on SS Police units in the Sandschak (that's the German translation of the region name—in occupied Yugoslavia). There is a bit of what I consider dubious editing going on regarding Muslim militias in that area, which is relying largely on Axis Europa sources, and I believe that Tessin et al would help in ensuring the coverage is neutral and accurate. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the issue? I don't have that book by Tessin, but I do have his Waffen-SS und Ordnungspolizei im Kriegseinsatz 1939–45. The only thing I see on the regiment is this from p. 599: "Im Juli 1944 erfolgte die Austsellung des ebenfalls der Ordnungspolizei unterstellten Pol.Selbstschutz-Rgt.Sandschak" Comprised HQ and four battalions based on feldpost numbers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for example, there is (probably unreliable) material online that Tessin et al is apparently sourced from Tessin et al, that lists two German SS police officers as commanders of that regiment, but the article says Krempler or a Muslim was the CO. Seems pretty unlikely to me that an SS Police Regiment would be commanded by a local Muslim collaborator. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unlikely, but not impossible given that the unit wasn't a "full" SS-Police unit, but rather a local militia unit as evidenced by the title. I know that the Waffen-SS proper often had foreign nationals commanding units formed from their nationals. Not sure offhand if the SS-Police did the same, but I don't see why they wouldn't have.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

East Africa 1914-1918 aficionados
East African Campaign (World War I)

On 15 August, German Askari forces stationed in the Neu Moshi region engaged in their first offensive of the campaign. Taveta on the British side of Kilimanjaro fell to 300 askaris of two field companies with the British firing a token volley and retiring in good order.[17] In September, the Germans began to stage raids deeper into British East Africa and Uganda. German naval power on Lake Victoria was limited to Hedwig von Wissmann and Kingani a tugboat armed with one "pom-pom" gun, causing minor damage but a great deal of news. The British then armed the Uganda Railway lake steamers SS William Mackinnon, SS Kavirondo, Winifred and Sybil as improvised gunboats. Two of these

[which?]

trapped the tug, which the Germans scuttled.[18] The Germans later raised her, dismounted her gun for use elsewhere and continued to use the tug as an unarmed transport; with the tug disarmed "teeth removed, British command of Lake Victoria was no longer in dispute."[19]


 * Can anyone shed light on this detail please, I can't find a source. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith, according to Edward Paice's book World War I: The African Front (which I own) the two boats that trapped the German tug Kingani were not any of the above steamers, but two small motor boats called Mimi and Toutou, part of Geoffrey Spicer-Samson's Lake Tanganyika Expedition, which left England on 29 May 1915. The incident in question took place on Boxing Day 1915, about a week after Mimi and Toutou were launched on the lake. (see pages 101 and 145–148 of this book). I know you will not reply to any message of mine but I hope this helps anyway. Cheers <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 11:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, according to this book the Kingani was not sunk but was captured by the British, renamed Fifi by Spicer-Samson and used against the Germans thereafter. (pp. 149–150) I expect whoever wrote the above passage may have confused the Kingani with something else. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 11:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem editor on military bios
Our good friend YahwehSaves has recently come across my radar again. You may remember him from such events as Admin help requested - Edit war at Audie Murphy and this failed ANI. He is on a Combat Action Ribbon POV pushing crusade. He is a self-designated expert on all things military and is going around retroactively awarding CAR's and gold award stars on military bios where he believes they should be. He does not care if there are reliable sources only that he believes in fairness that they should have them and asks us to prove a negative in a Randy in Boisesque manner. Dealing with this editor made me stop editing for three months a couple of years ago. Granted, my leaving the project is no major loss, but his bad behavior has not been stopped and has thereby been enabled. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia and a general adherence to our standards is necessary, otherwise what do we have? EricSerge (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Eric, the only thing I can suggest is keep him talking, and patiently try to explain our policies on verifiability/sourcing/original research etc. It does seem to be an issue of competence rather than one of malice, so you might be able to reason with him. If he continues adding original research to articles, let me know (here or on my talk page or go to ANI) and I'll look at the possibility of a block, but talking is always preferable to blocking. Whatever you do, keep us in the loop—I'll do what I can, and I'm sure my fellow coordinators and perhaps dome other project members will contribute if they think they can help—but don't suffer in silence to the point that editing is no longer enjoyable. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have nothing good to say about YahwehSaves. I've run into that user before and I wish they would leave Wikipedia forever.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur, sadly. He's shown in the past that he doesn't "do" the communication thing, and hasn't shown much willingness to work constructively in a collaborative environment. Intothatdarkness 22:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's always WP:AN (which is the appropriate venue for proposing community-based sanctions, up to and including a site ban) or WP:RfC/U if you can establish a pattern of disruptive editing and refusal to remedy it when it is pointed out to him... <b style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  22:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So at what point can I stop taking this guy's abuse? He keeps making paranoid comments that if they were directed against someone else, I would think they were a personal attack. EricSerge (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I really thought we had made progress on explaining the situation and relevant issues in play to YahwehSaves. Despite a lot of patient diplomacy, Over several LONG discussions with myself and others (ie see Here, Here, Here, & Here), he or she is still going around adding Combat Action Ribbons to WWII & Korean vets without providing any sources - most recently now at Albert L. Ireland, Harry Kizirian, & Edmund Ernest García.  I'll try one last time and I'll post directly to YahwehSaves user talk page, but I no longer think it will do any good as his or her actions show an unwillingness to listen.  Gecko G (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, I thought I was the only one who felt this way about this particular editor. Till now, I thought much of his edits were of Good Faith, but when reading the above comments, I'm now skeptical. The mentioned user has been removing sourced claims from articles I worked really hard on to make a GA (Harry Kizirian) and is adding unsourced claims based on his personal observations entirely (see my discussion with him on his talk page). I'd recommend WP:AE as an appropriate venue for this. Is WWII not an arbitrarily covered area? ? ? ? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm...WP:AE? I'm sorry but what does WWII being or not being "an arbitrarily covered area" (And I don't think it, nor any part of Wikipedia is arbitrary) have to do with the enforcement of a closed arbitration agreement?  I suspect that you are confusing "Arbitrariness" with "Arbitration".
 * As for YS's edits to the Harry Kizirian article - other than the China Service Medal (Which you've been discussing on YS's talk page and for which you've apparently confirmed a source for - if I followed the discussion correctly), what other sourced material was removed by YS? I see Y.S. made plenty of additions (ie the aforementioned Combat Action Ribbon) but I don't see any other removals upon a quick look (re-orderings, but not removals).  YS has done and made plenty of questionable edits, but let's be specific and not over-react or YS's perception of unfair persecution will have merit.  Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No doubt a confusion between arbitrary and WP:ARBCOM (and only certain areas of WWII are ARBCOM territory, Etienne). However, YS's editing remains highly problematic from what I can see from a brief trawl through. Addition of unsourced material to GA articles is of particular concern to me, especially if the editor involved can't back up the edits with RS when challenged. YS does appear to be continuing what was previously a pretty problematic editing pattern and lack of discussion when reverted. I think a report at WP:ANI is fully justified, it just needs to be targeted at the unacceptable editing behaviour that is not IAW WP policies, not just annoying behaviour (of which there is plenty). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well arbitration is what I meant. It appears that the long-term disruption the user is accused of is limited to a certain topic (WWII). Is this not ARBCOM territory? If so, under what case? The few problematic edits turned out to be part of a long-term disruptive editing pattern by the user. The mere removal of a medal is harmless but when coupled with his addition of other medals per personal observations and with no RS to back his claims it becomes disruptive. That's not the only issue. He's removed the Rhode Island Cross from the lead of Harry Kizirian. Let's not forget that the article is GA and that the Rhode Island Cross is the highest award for valor for the state of Rhode Island. Yet, these are the only issue I've come across myself. Therefore, in light of the discussion above, I still think ARBCOM is an appropriate venue for solving this matter since it appears to be a long-term problem. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Believe me, you don't want to go to ARBCOM without lots of evidence, and even then your subject can wriggle out via an appeal (with all due respect to the ARBCOMers). I suggest you document everything the editor in question does that is contrary to WP policy and save them up until it is incontrovertible. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, removed from a section (the lead), not removed entirely - I see now what your refering to.
 * As for ARBCOM vs. ANI, I know extremely little about one and nothing about the other so I'll heed others recomendations on that. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

WWI people in other languages
A useful tool for anyone wanting to knock out a few short biographies -

I've just been doing a bit of curation of the Wikidata entries for people involved in WWI - at the time of writing, there are over 13,000 entries - they are mostly comprised of people who served in the military, but there are a good fraction of people who were involved as politicians or in other ways. (For enwiki & frwiki I imported from military-service categories; for dewiki it was "people of WWI").

I've just imported a chunk of data from frwiki, and there are now ~1000 which have an article elsewhere but not in English (note that this report takes a while to run). I've added a lot of French names (from frwiki) and Austro-Hungarian ones (from dewiki); I'm just about to run an import for another ~2,800 German names, most of which probably won't be on enwiki, so this number will probably jump again.

I'm going to try beefing this up later by categorising by country/branch of service, so we can (eg) run a report for everyone who served in a given country's army. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Seaplane lighters
Do we have an article on these things? (WWI motorbarges fitted with ramps for launching planes; capacity: 1 plane) Apparently one still exists -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

CfD on Soviet veteran categories
I'm hoping for input from WikiProject members on Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 29 which discusses whether a group categories of soldiers/veterans should be deleted or not. Right now, there is a group of categories of Soviet veterans based on the battle they participated in or the front they fought on. I don't think this is standard categorization for soldiers and veterans but I'm hoping editors more experienced in this subject area could weigh in. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#006400">Read! Talk! 21:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems to have spawned a more general problem (should people who do not have independently notable military service be categorised as military personnel?) - I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people, since a strict reading of the policy seems to go against our normal practice and we should probably get this figured out. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

April article writing contest results
G'day all, the April contest is done and dusted, with Parsecboy first past the post on 81 points from eight entries for the Wikichevrons, and Lineagegeek a few lengths back on 43 points from nine entries for the Writer's Barnstar. A photo finish for third with Australian Rupert by a nose scoring 38 points from five entries and Cuprum17 with 36 points from seven. Other runners were Peacemaker67 with 25 points from five entries, Ian Rose with 20 points from three entries, Djmaschek with 17 points from three entries, Sturmvogel_66 with 10 points from one entry, The Bushranger with six points from one entry, and Tomobe03 with five points from one entry. Well done to Parsecboy (yet again) and Lineagegeek. Get your entries in for this month's contest here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Does one have to be an official member of this project to partake? I'd have almost no chance of winning of course, but I do plan on focusing on a few military biographies over the next little bit - much like I did with [Lemuel Shepherd's article and others in April].  It hadn't occured to me to see if my additions were enough to boost it up a step on the quality scale.  I'm planing to next look at the Clifton B. Cates article, and I bet I could get that up to C class, if not B.  Gecko G (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day, Gecko G, the contest page starts of with "the contest department of the Military history WikiProject aims to motivate increased quality in military history articles by offering a form of friendly competition for project members making improvements to them" (emphasis added). That seems to imply that contestants should be project members, but having said that, when we tally the results I don't think we check whether someone is formally signed up (I personally never have, but other co-ords might be different) and I don't have any problems with non members participating if they choose to. I think it would be great to get more people involved in the contest and it might serve to boost our membership. If you choose at a later date to join the project, that would be fantastic, but if not that's fine also. Just my opinion, of course, but I do say this with my project co-ord hat on (although of course, that doesn't hold much weight). Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with AR, the more the merrier. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I've never checked to see if a participant was an official member and, now I think of it, I don't regret not having done so. If you  enter the contest I reckon we'll consider you a de facto member anyway... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks all. I'll do so.  Now I need to go read about how to get articles assessed and rated.  Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can sign up and opt out of the newsletter if you like or not. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Re WW II-era fortifications, batteries etc.
I've looked through the lists of military topics, and see lists of equipment and so on; but nothing I can see where fortifications would fit. Having discovered the non-Barrett Point list of other fortifications in the same region (the British Columbia Coast of Canada), here at Barrett Point and a similar though smaller list here in the middle of the page, and knowing of others, such as the Bella Bella Airbase (now Shearwater, British Columbia, though still the location of the Bella Bella P.O.), I'm about to do List of World War II-era fortifications on the British Columbia Coast, using the items in those links, maybe in table format ultimately. Fortifications on the coast go back through the Spanish-American War era to the Pig War and before; but the number and range of the World War II ones was unprecedented; some later evolved into Cold War-era listening stations or part of the DEW and Mid-Canada and Pine-Tree Lines. Anyways, in what category would this go? I'll just add the MILHIST template to its talkpage, I wouldn't know what all the switches possible for it would be. What alerted me to this is what is now titled Yorke Island (Canada), which had been Yorke Island coastal fort, and in the Category:Forts in British Columbia, which is really for things named "Fort FOO" or the like, and other than Forts Rood Hill and Fort Steele most weren't military in nature; the fortifications and other coastal defences were. Anyways I'll make the list, its title may need adjustment and suitable categories needed; Category:World War II in British Columbia as a subcat of Category:World War II in Canada, likewise for other provinces, especially Nova Scotia and Newfoundland/Labrador I'd think....anyways that as maybe a parent cat to a category for the list items, many of which will have their own articles (or may already do).Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

150-years-later images of battlefields
I'd appreciate some suggestions on the appropriateness of including new photos in American Civil War battle articles. I've just uploaded a bunch of images depicting points that were significant during the Siege of Corinth and the Second Battle of Corinth (you can find them at National Register of Historic Places listings in Alcorn County, Mississippi), and I'd like to see them used in battle articles if appropriate, but I question whether that would be the case. I know that SGGH used my image at Battle of Sacramento (Kentucky), but that's the only image we have from this comparatively insignificant fight; we have several contemporary images from Corinth, since it was an important battle, and I'm left wondering whether my images might be considered extraneous. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Used sparingly, I think that modern photographs of a historical battlefield can be a good thing - they answer a question which many readers will have, namely "how does the battlefield look today". Hchc2009 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed - one should use a good deal of discretion, especially since a battlefield that hasn't been maintained can change considerably at that time (for example, from what I understand, a great deal of the works at Vicksburg have been destroyed by erosion and development). On the other hand, a contemporary photo of the Devil's Den or Little Round Top could be very useful since they haven't changed much since the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 29/04
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/USS LCS(L)(3)-102. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar enough with the naming conventions for ships at MILHIST - is this titled correctly? S.G.(GH) ping! 14:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is more closely tied to WP:Ships. See WP:SHIPMOS and WP:Naming conventions (ships) for naming guidance.  That ship may not be notable enough for its own article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"aircraft carrier"
Should seaplane tenders be included at List of aircraft carriers of Germany; or experiments in the development of aircraft carriers? See talk:List of aircraft carriers of Germany -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move notification
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:June Uprising in Eastern Herzegovina, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 07/05

 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Léon Pignon.
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Napoleon-class ship of the line. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

NNS Okpabana
The NNS Okpabana article is seriously in need of referencing, expansion and updating. Plenty of material available (link on talk page). Therefore a bounty of a barnstar is offered to any editor(s) who bring the article up to GA standard. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 08/04
Draft:Walter Edmond Smith. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

1st Aero Squadron early aircraft
I've obtained some early 1st Aero Squadron photos. The unit is posed in front of some aircraft I can't identify. Can anyone help please? Thank you :)  Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:1st Aero Squadron - 1.jpg File:1st Aero Squadron - 2.jpg File:1st Aero Squadron - 4.jpg

Noted the campaign hat as well as the uniform worn by one of the squadron members, I believe these are pre-World War I photos. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In the first image, the aircraft on the left is a Burgess Model H trainer, a better picture than the one in our article is here; the one on the right looks like a Curtiss JN, whether a JN-2 or a JN-3 I can't tell (the squadron operated both types before the US entry into WWI). The aircraft in the other two images seem to be Burgesses too. Perhaps somebody with more knowledge in this area could clarify. Alansplodge (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would help with the identification of the location of the photos and the date.  1915 the squadron operated Burgess Trainers, and that photo you provided appears to be the same aircraft type.   Also the squadron received some early Curtiss JNs in 1915.   That would put the location of the photo also at North Island (later Rockwell Field).  I've seen some early photos of Rockwell Field and the hangar in the 1st photo is similar to what I've seen in others taken at Rockwell Field.

File:1st Reconnaissance Squadron - Curtiss JN-2.jpg

Thank you very much :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Greatwall 1933 china.jpg
There is a notice at WT:CHINA about being nominated for deletion on Commons. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

200 German WWI posters soon to be deleted from Commons
Re: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Martin H./World War I posters in the Library of Congress for jpg file matches to "Rehse-Archiv"

If anyone has a particular interest in interpreting how artists were commissioned by the Oberste Heeresleitung during WWI, I encourage them to express a view in the above deletion request. The key issue is whether there is "significant doubt" as to the copyright of WWI German propaganda posters which were created as part of fund-raising campaigns or general propaganda.

One action we could take to ensure these stay available for encyclopaedia articles would be to move them to the English Wikipedia, where their status as public domain is less contentious. I have an interest in these as the person that uploaded them from the Library of Congress. --Fæ (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Calling Belgian polyglots
Battle of Liège The recounting of German claims of franc tireur crimes, appears to have been read as an endorsement of the claims. What's the Belgian equivalent of putting a claim in "inverted commas"? Keith-264 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keith-264, in French, guillemets (« ») are used to indicate quotation marks. I am not certain if such usage can also be meant to call into question the honesty of a statement, but I suspect it would highlight the phrase for an attentive reader.  Source for this usage is the Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Edition, para. 9.22 Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much.Keith-264 (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But in Dutch, quotation marks are used, just like in English. Perhaps it might be a good idea to look at the phrasing a bit? Brigade Piron (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did that and added a link to the Belgium page. Nice to see the Kamerun page getting a dusting off. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Military History At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project? We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at WIkimania 2014 for all projects that apply. For more information, click the link below. Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion of a suitable leaflet at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators which interested members of this project might want to look in on Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A-Class review for Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem of Italy's role in the war will simply not go away.
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * 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.

This discussion has been closed as the same subject was aired in this forum very recently Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I posted this on the countering systemic bias page, but I have cut and pasted it here because I feel that it is an ongoing problem that simply won't go away.

I am still finding a lot of bias against the Italian involvement in WW2. The bias appears endemic and systemic. I think the bias stems from these areas:

1. A heavy Anglo-American perspective.

2. The use of authors/historians/writers who are bias.

3. A type of advocacy approach to history writing, in which the Wiki editor is trying to build a case for something, like how and why the Italian military failed in an attack, an incursion, a strategy or some other endeavor. This advocacy approach often means cherry pickling information that will help "win" the editor's argument, and ignoring other material that may actually prove the contrary.

4.Quoting and paraphrasing biased authors as a type of defense to bias. Just because "an author said it or wrote it" doesn't make it right or suitable to the article. The excuse: "but I've read several books about that battle, and they all say the same thing - the Italian invasion was a fiasco!" But if the secondary sources one is using are themselves already biased and ill informed and often borrow and paraphrase each other like parrots, then whether you quote one book or 50 really makes no difference. If I read 50 books written by Klu Klux Klan members about blacks, and they all pretty much say the same thing, have I actually read wisely? Does it prove my argument that all blacks are inferior because, well... I read 50 books and they all agree!

5. I mentioned the word "fiasco". In reading many of the articles dealing with the Italian involvement, "fiasco" is certainly one word that keeps cropping up. But there are many others like: "a disaster", "incompetent", "imbecilic", "military incompetence", "treacherous surrender", "abject surrender", "rout" (as if the British didn't have their fair share of this!), "lack of will", "harebrained plan", "the singularly inglorious record of the Italians in what little fighting they had done ... facilitated German policy" and on and on... . AnnalesSchool (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Brigae Piron. I;m pretty new at Wiki editing, so you can imagine my shock, when I started getting involved. I'm also university trained in history and teach it, so it came as a bit of a double shock. I don't mean to sound superior, and I am sure the editors are doing their best, as it is all voluntary and takes plenty of time, to create articles like the "Italo-Greek War" for example. Even though I teach history, I don't claim to be an expert on WW2. There are far more knowledgeable editors around who really know their stuff: who attacked whom, the number and size of tanks involved, the strategic objectives and types of artillery used, etc,. So I don't claim to be an expert in that way. But I do know bad history when I see it. I recognize bias and glossing over when I see it. For example, it isn't enough to write that a certain battle was a "fiasco". Why was it a "fiasco"? How do you define "fiasco"? and who or what are you comparing it to? Too often, editors will take a statement from a secondary source, like a German one for example, where the German general is blaming the Italians for a defeat. They would take a statement like: "Italians make good wine, but are poor soldiers", quote it, give it a citation and a reference, and then hold it up as "evidence" of yet another Italian failure. They don't seem to even imagine other possibilities such as: a)the author may have made it up; b)the author may have misquoted or taken it out of context; c)the German general was looking for a scapegoat and blamed the Italians for his incompetence, etc,.

One Wiki editor was fond of quoting from the Ciano diaries, especially when Count Ciano was describing Mussolini in unflattering terms, as that "strutting dictator" being "jealous" of Hitler's successes. When I suggested that there was no need to use such quotes because it added nothing to the article in question, he took great offense and exclaimed: "But that's what Ciano wrote!" I replied that there is some suspicion that it may not have been what he wrote because the diaries were tampered with, he was speechless.

Finally I will just finish with this point. The articles dealing with the Italian involvement almost invariably stress the so-called "weaknesses" almost to the point of fetishism. The equipment was poor; the tanks were without adequate armor; the artillery was obsolete; lack of motor transport, the troops were demoralized and lack the will to fight, the officers were incompetent, communications were poor, Mussolini was a buffoon who didn't know what he was doing, etc,. However, these things may be true to a point, but why continue to stress the Italian military's weaknesses, and not their strengths and successes? There is this incredible double standard, where even if the Italians do have some successes, they are still portrayed as failures, and if not failures, the Germans must have helped them, and if they can't find any Germans, then the Italians must have just got lucky that day.

And finally again, there is this unfair comparison with the Germans. For example, one editor compared the German conquest of France to the very modest gains the Italians achieved in southern France. Two totally different scenarios and war aims, and quite unfair to compare. They just don't seem to understand that the Italian military effort should be seen in the context of Italian politics, industrial base and culture. Germany was in an entirely different league. It's like comparing a light-weight boxer unfavorably to a heavy-weight one; who in their right mind would blame the light-weight boxer for not beating the heavy-weight?

I'm afraid to say that there is a strong undertone of prejudice against the Italian that borders on racism pure and simple. The language, the structure and content, reflect it.

Let me state from the outset I am not Italian. If anything, my ancestors come from Scandinavia, so I have no ax to grind here. I teach history, but I am no expert on WW2. But I do know biased and poorly written history when I see it. I stand by my assertions above. The Italian war effort, when compared to the Hungarians and the Bulgarians, is certainly put under the microscope and "dissected" piece by piece. One example: when the Italian king sacked and arrested Mussolini, and began to sue for peace with the Allies in 1943, there is no end to describing it as the cowardly surrender, the stab in the back, the basest treachery ever committed in the history of warfare! However, the Hungarians were looking for a way out too, and when under Horty, they tried to open up negotiations with the Allies, Hitler invaded and installed a puppet regime. But this is a good example of double standards: the Hungarians are allowed to surrender, but when it comes to the Italians, it's described as the "basest treachery" and further proof (if proof was needed), of Italian perfidy. And yet, these so-called "historians" overlook the fact that Mussolini remained loyal to Hitler, right to the end, when he set up his north Italian regime.AnnalesSchool (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC) AnnalesSchool (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

-

Enigma is a very good example of this type of writer. His one page "analysis": (30% of the article itself- Italian invasion of France) is disjointed and incoherent. It reads like the closing argument of a prosecuting barrister. It brings in quote after quote such as "overwhelming historical consensus", the invasion was a "fiasco" (they really love this word!), "ignominious", and all the other stock phrases such writers use. As proof of how gutless the Italians were, they had the temerity to "bypass" a fort and go on to take the city of Menton. Rather than see the "bypass" as common sense, this author sees it as further proof of Italian timidity! God help the troops if Enigma was their general! "No men, we can't bypass that heavily fortified bastion. That would be seen as cowardice! We must attack it head on!"

Another example of how bad his analysis is and how bad the whole article is. The French called an armistice to cease fighting the Italians. Therefore, the French were never defeated. But isn't an armistice a sign of defeat? By this logic, the Germans never defeated the French too.

Another example: on the 20th June, the Italians attacked (some Wiki articles mention the 10th June, but heck, what's 10 days, eh? - 10th, 20th, it's Wiki precision!). By the 25th June the French call it quits and ask for an armistice with the Italians. As a reader, I would be thinking, "Hey, that's not bad going. In five days of fighting, the French sued for peace with the Italians. Also, they received a number of concessions from the French. Not bad going for 5 days of fighting at the cost of 700 dead."

Rather than look at the "end result" and ask the more pertinent question: what did the Italians gain from this attack? they look at it from the wrong end of the telescope and dissect in loving detail, the "means". They get caught up in so much useless detail (like gratuitous quotes from Ciano), they lose focus on the important issues. This looking down the wrong end of the telescope only produces articles with lots of "detail" but somewhere along the way, they lose themselves in this forest of detail. In other words, they have the "pieces" of the toy airplane, but assemble it looking like an elephant! And yet, the achievements of the Italians are slighted and ignored and given short shrift.

I am seriously considering writing a new wiki article warning wiki readers about such wiki articles, and to take what is written with a teaspoon of salt. Better still, I would try to encourage visitors to Wikipedia, NOT to read such articles. Would I be allowed to write an article warning visitors to Wikipeda about Wikipedia? I wonder? AnnalesSchool (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnalesSchool (talk • contribs)


 * Given that you've tried to add completely false material to Wikipedia articles to bias them in favour of Italy's war effort, I don't think that you have much credibility here. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that's a bit of a worry. Also, can I just mention WP:TLDR. Please try to make your comments briefer, it will help interested editors from just looking at the length of them and thinking "too hard". BTW, there are plenty of editors on WP (and in our project), that have post-graduate academic qualifications in history. I think I understand what you are getting at, and without wanting to engage in a source war, I also think you need to take into account the fact that there are plenty of Italian and other non-Anglo-centric) historians who criticise Italian military performance in WWII across a range of areas, not least because of Italy's lack of preparation for war and poor strategic planning and decision-making, and the effect that had on their naval, land and air capabilities. There are also plenty of examples of criticism of poor leadership and poor tactical handling of troops by non-Anglo academics. Loi's Le operazioni delle unità italiane in Jugoslavia (1941–1943): narrazione, documenti, Tomasevich's hefty works on Yugoslavia, Rodogno's Fascism's European Empire: Italian Occupation During the Second World War all document Italian reticence to commit to hard fighting against insurgents, and there is excellent coverage of the overall Italian war effort in the enormous multi-author Germany and the Second World War, which uses plenty of Italian secondary sources throughout. Shores, Cull and Malizia have written extensively on the 1941 air campaigns involved the Regia Aeronautica. There is more than enough available in English for a accurate view to be drawn about Italian performance in WWII. My area of interest is Yugoslavia, so I am not sure I will be helping with other areas of Italian involvement in the war. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh Peacemaker, for someone who has read so much, the few above paragraphs is daunting?AnnalesSchool (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Untrue and unfair to assert such things Nick.AnnalesSchool (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all: you tried to include a claim that "With the assistance of German forces, Italy was able to overrun much of Yugoslavia" here, alongside a number of other exaggerations of Italy's role in the war. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now THAT really is an enormous distortion of the facts. Italy didn't even cross the border until 11 April, when the Germans had been fighting for five days and the Yugoslav Army was disintegrating, and was in retreat or surrendering right across the country, with the exception of the forces on the Albanian frontier. The Italian part of the invasion was a complete walk-in-the-park that made little contribution to the Axis defeat of Yugoslavia. It was only on the Albanian Front that the Italians did any real fighting, and that was because they were attacked by the Yugoslavs and had to counter-attack. Sorry chief, but if that is the sort of stuff you are peddling, I'll have nothing to do with it, and more power to those that are holding you to account. Good luck with that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That's funny, because my sources all talk about an "Axis" invasion of Yugoslavia, and "Axis" doesn't just mean Germany. Moreover, if the Italian "part of the invasion was a complete walk-in-the-park" where and how were they "retreating right across the country"? So they "walked into Yugoslavia" and then "retreated"??? Is that correct?AnnalesSchool (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was the Italians doing most of the fighting in Greece, and it was the Germans who didn't contribute all that much and had a "walk-in-the-park". I'm sorry to say, but the racism and bias towards the Italians, and the unfairness in how they are treated, is really disgraceful. AnnalesSchool (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No racism or bias, just reliable, published sources from across the spectrum, even Italian ones (at least in the articles I edit). Nothing to see here, move on. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, apparently this editor believes that Greece should have surrendered right away to Italy to avoid the brutal German occupation, because the Italians were jolly nice chaps and everyone just loved being occupied by Italy. So much about acting like a "trained historian", having researched his subject, campaigning against oversimplified stereotypes and holding no preconceived notions at all. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * AnnalesSchool, the reason Italian forces are portrayed this way is because the (VAST) majority of reliable sources portray them that way. Q.E.D.. Wikipedia is not the place to push a position that goes against the vast majority of sources, no matter how wrong you believe the majority position might be. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we just go through this diatribe a week or two ago? ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Serious case of WP:IDHT? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While annoying that the topic keeps being raised, I would urge colleagues to be careful of over reaction. While I think arguing that the Italian performance was really brilliant and has been misrepresented by biased editors and authors is a non-starter, the fact that there generations of ethnic stereotyping to contend with in providing a NPOV article is a reality.  We should take care that, for example, the description of military failure in reference to the Italian armed forces is not described more pejoratively than failures of other powers, such as Britain and the US.  So, the usual plea - don't let a persistent extreme position drive you away from the need to check POV and weasel word issues.  But, maybe we have gone round this circuit enough now? Monstrelet (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Habitual WP:IDHT. I didn't think there were trolls in our group until now. Can one of the Admins delete this section, it's documented at least twice in the archives if this guy wants to talk to himself about it. Time to move on. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2014 (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.

Talk:Greater_Romania
User:Borsoka proposed the move Greater Romania → Interwar Romania

Comments and arguments are welcome. Avpop (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Milhist is like the bar car on Connecticut trains (minus the part where they just got rid of them)
"We've shared all the things that you share with your friends in life through meeting each other in this bar car." Just thought I'd throw this in here. It's been nice working with all of you through the years, and here's to the years to come! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What a shame they're derailing them. Great way to commute (wish they had one on my line...). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I spent a chunk of what was probably the strangest day of my life drinking large cans of beer on the Toyko subway. The local guy I was with assured me that it was perfectly legal and normal, but the looks we got from the other people on the trains suggested otherwise. Good to see that some countries have more civilised arrangements, even if they're coming to an end. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Settings blunder?
User talk:Keith-264 Would some kind soul have a look at my watchlist and see if I've altered something by mistake, because the edit tools have disappeared from the window when I edit. No drop-down box for en dashes and fractions, no little box bottom left for similar and different alphabets etc....? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What have you got ticked under your Preferences, Editing tab, Editor section? (for example I've got all 5 options ticked) GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's gone back to normal. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

World War One belligerents map
There has been a slow paced dispute about what to do with cobelligerents on the world war one page for some time now, see here File_talk:WWI-re.png. I've made some proposals that may solve the issue, but would appreciate imput from the editors in the military history project as to what they think should be done. XavierGreen (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Great Stirrup Controversy
I've tagged the article for this project, it should interest editors concerned with cavalry, medieval warfare and technology topic areas. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER vs. edit consensus vs. WP:V
At the moment, WP:SOLDIER states, "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they...Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents" (& similar for other cases). My read of this is that we need "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources", though we assume such coverage will be available for such officers. This would be consistent with WP:V "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." A discussion currently wrapping/wrapped up at Articles for deletion/William J. Ecker points to Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes ("Flag officers, general officers and their service equivalents (e.g., Air officers) are generally considered notable.") with a feeling that such officers are notable. (In the particular case, no independent reliable sources have been found, the article is based entirely on what seems to be a Coast Guard press release announcing one of Ecker's postings.) If the consensus is that such officers are always notable, what should the wording here be? The current text seems to require sourcing that the consensus emerging at the AfD seems to disagree with. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday. I think your original interpretation is the correct one and remains appropriate (to me at least). We assume such individuals will have the req'd coverage and are therefore notable but if that assumption is proven incorrect then the opposite must be true (at least in the present moment). If they are notable at some point significant coverage will emerge and an article can be written at that time. That's my take anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember that "verifiable" does not mean "verified." For certain categories of individuals, on the basis of collected editorial experience, the community has developed presumptions about notability.  It is presumed that all flag officers will have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:V.  The fact that you -- or anyone -- is unable to access those sources through an online search is not enough to rebut this presumption.  So long as sourcing exists to prove the real existence of the subject, the community allows articles to remain within the encyclopedia in an imperfect state on the basis of that presumption.  The presumption of notability only becomes rebuttable if the article remains in an imperfect state for a substantial period of time.  This allows the encyclopedia to flourish, and accounts for the fact that many valid reliable sources remain on paper, and are not immediately available in an online search.
 * I don't believe that the wording of WP:SOLDIER requires alteration because I believe that this practice (of presumptive notability according a "grace period" to sourced, but imperfectly sourced articles) is understood by most editors. This practice does not conflict with WP:V; WP:V does not require that every article be perfectly sourced at its creation.  The process of adding and vetting sources is editorial, and must be given time to occur.
 * It is reasonable to wonder when this "grace period" ends, and when the presumption of notability becomes rebuttable. That is a determination left to consensus on a case-by-case individual basis, as evaluated through the deletion process.  Xoloz (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that WP:SOLDIER has never been widely accepted outside this project (past attempts to raise it to guideline status were unsuccessful), and so should always be used with great caution. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, being a general or flag officer is notable. The guideline (although not widely accepted outside this project) should state that reaching that rank is notable, even absent all other media reporting.  People that win a Pulitzer Prize are notable, even absent other reporting.  Typically other reporting exists but we don't need to show that other reporting in an AfD to indicate that person is notable.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I disagree. Modern militaries typically have large numbers of star level officers in 'back office' type posts, few of whom ever receive any coverage in independent sources, much less significant levels of coverage. Notability in Wikipedia is dependent on the availability of independent reliable sources, and not people holding an 'important' position. Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That there are "too many flag officiers" for "flag offers = notable" has been raised before in AfDs - and refuted. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to say that brigadiers/one-stars are pretty much two bob a dozen even here in Australia, I can't imagine how many there would be in the US... There would be plenty of them that wouldn't meet WP:GNG, which is the WP-wide standard. I think of WP:SOLDIER as a sliding scale, a brigadier that has commanded a brigade (especially on operations) is much more likely to be notable than a brigadier driving a desk in Canberra. If said brigadier is decorated, more likely, if not, less so. It can be a line-ball call at the bottom ranks, but almost all two-stars and above would meet GNG regardless of SOLDIER (in Australia and the UK at least), can't speak for the US. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. According to the most recent Defence Annual Report, the ADF had 186 officers at one star rank and higher on 30 June 2013: . I'd guess that about 20 to 30 of them would have received the level of coverage needed to pass WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wish to *strongly* associate myself with Nick-D and Peacemaker67 here. A two-star in some administrative backoffice job in U.S./UK/France etc, in my view, needs to independently meet WP:GNG/BIO to be included. They are not notable simply by being a brigadier in a backoffice job and then doing one short two-star tour in another backoffice job. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And I would likely to completely disagree. In my opinion, anyone who has reached that rank (in any walk of life) is worthy of an article. I also find it slightly disagreeable that some seem to think that combat officers are automatically more notable than non-combat officers. I find this sort of comment tends to either come from arrogant former combat types (usually the first to scream if they're not fed or paid, but very keen on claiming their superiority over those who do that sort of thing!) or wannabes who've never been in a uniform in their lives. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Big call, chief. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Two things occur to me. First, are there equivalent "automatic" qualifications for other Wikipedia areas? Like being president of a university, or member of a national legislative body? If not, it would seem that WP:SOLDIER is an outlier. If so, it wouldn't seem to be as important. Second, why waste time creating a page for a brigadier/air commodore or other 1 star with not much in the way of references. For comparison, I checked and there is no page for a USAF Major General who commanded two overseas stations, a Combat Support Group, an Air Refueling Wing, a Bombardment Wing, and ended his career as Chief of Staff (#3) of Strategic Air Command. I know of Lt Generals without articles as well from recent work expanding Air Division articles. Seems like a more fruitful area to develop than general officers on the margin of notability. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Most certainly there are. WP:POLITICIAN for example. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer N. Pritzker
I'd appreciate input on the matter I raised on Talk:Jennifer N. Pritzker regarding the impact on understanding a transgender person's biography (e.g. in the military), when the MOS IDENTITY guidelines require using the up-to-date gendered pronoun throughout the individual's life, though there's obviously been a change of gender at some point in that individual's personal time line. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the MOS issue, but logic suggests the lead and infobox should use the current gender, the body should use whatever gender applied at the time. After the change, the gendered pronoun changes. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 12/05
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Battle for Vozuća. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Olivia Forsyth. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Rates of mobilization through history
Mobilization is a mess. I thought about adding some stats, such as average levels of mobilization achieved in agricultural/industrial/post-industrial societies, and more examples through history (Roman Empire, etc.). I am having difficulty finding reliable sources. Can anyone help? To keep discussion centralized, please direct any replies (or copy them) to Talk:Mobilization. Thanks! --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Lots of changes
We have an editor that is changing the outcome of conflicts and adding statements all over - SEE HERE. Think we need someone from here to look at this. The editor has been asked to add sources but just blanks the messages as seen here. Many of the edits are to just fix caps and spelling ...but lots of guess work aswell (or what looks like guess work because never a source) -- Moxy (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Chickamauga Wars article title
There is a move request discussion on the title of the Chickamauga Wars (1776–94) article at Talk:Chickamauga Wars (1776–94) if you care to participate. — <span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:#F9FFFF;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> AjaxSmack  03:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Really interesting discussion for the Medieval specialists
Please see Talk:Great Stirrup Controversy. There are a few challenges about Medieval weapons technology and use that need to be solved. Cavalry specialists would also be interested. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Project Number G18
FYI has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the information should be added to Unryū-class aircraft carrier for "closure."-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  12:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What information? I don't think that the Japanese ever even got so far as to define the improvements that they'd like to do to the Unryus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)
 * Just the fact that there was a project.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  02:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

MSM discussion
There is a discussion regarding the MSM at Talk:Meritorious Service Medal (United States). Editors are invited to comment. – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Special Air Service Regiment
Gday all. I've been attempting to reference Special Air Service Regiment but am now pretty much at the limit of the references I have available. Would be grateful for any assistance anyone can give in providing references or correcting the article. Given the importance of the topic Wikipedia should be able to provide a B class article on the subject at least. Only a few more citations needed. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty well referenced to me...especially the great text sources. Stratocaster27t@lk 22:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday. Thanks for the encouragement. I've added a few more sources this week but unfortunately there are still a few CN tags left (primarily IRT selection and training). I have also removed some of the uncited text already (in regards to different berets for support staff etc), but if I can't get the remaining refs will probably do the same for the rest as well. Would be a shame to lose some of this but not really sure there is an alternative. Happy to wait a bit and see if any editors here can add something though of course. Any takers? Anotherclown (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Title of War in Darfur
A discussion is taking place on the title of this article at Talk:War_in_Darfur. All input welcome. Thank you. <small style="color:green">walk <i style="color:green">victor falk</i><i style="color:green">talk</i> 05:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Nacht und Nebel
This high-importance article is sadly extremely poor. It's not even immediately obvious what it was. It would be great if anyone who possesses relevant reference texts could have a go at it! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hate to disagree with you, Brigade Piron, but Shirer's book's account is little different from that in the article - a decree personally issued by Hitler on December 7, 1941, ordering that certain individuals in the Western conquered territories be removed to Germany without any notification to their families of their fate. I've added the Shirer reference. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Despite possible quality matters I think this should be moved to Nacht und Nebel Erlass or Nacht und Nebel decree as the term Nacht und Nebel is a common saying in german. --Bomzibar (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Gen. McRaven
I went to William H. McRaven looking to see some (hopefully unbiased) information on the events in but found nothing in the article. I'm not well-versed with Wikipedia's biographies, and the few I've worked on have been mathematicians rather than military, so I thought I'd stop by here for some advice or help. This probably only needs a paragraph, just something pointing to sources on the topic, but I'm a little hesitant to jump in without relevant experience. (On the other hand it's not tiny -- big enough to be GWU's The National Security Archive #2 Rosemary entry for 2014,, which is where I came across this.)

CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * DIY usually works best :) Does this warrant a paragraph in his biography though? - it seems more relevant to the article on the raid, especially as it's not a McRaven-centric issue (President Obama made the call to never release photos of Bin Laden's body or burial at sea for fairly obvious - and sensible IMO - reasons ). Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Flag icon usage
Hi all. There is an ongoing discussion on the usage of flag icons on sports articles. I would appreciate some input from this project's members, as a project that makes use of flagicons in a defined way. I think it would be useful if any of you could help to assess if sports editors are requesting usages that are not consistent with Wikipedia as a whole. Thanks. SFB 09:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Parenthetical references question
Battle of Verrières Ridge <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 18/05
Draft:George Matthews. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island
I am beginning a revamp of Ford Island in the center of Pearl Harbor. I'm going to cover from the use by ancient Hawaiians all the way to present day with a respectable portion on the attack on Pearl Harbor at Ford Island. I'd love to have help by anyone with lots of Pearl Harbor history books who might want to do the 1935-1950 history. My plan is to get it to GA or maybe even FA status.--v/r - TP 00:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got the article pretty much hammered out - could I get someone to review it for accuracy?--v/r - TP 06:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hymns of the US Armed Forces
Dear military experts: Here's an old Afc submission that is a Navbox. Is this something useful that should be kept and added to the appropriate articles? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
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) 22:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

LukeFieldAircraft
FYI has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

campaignbox FUBAR
Template:Campaignbox Free French

I was creating this campaignbox when I noticed it behaved strangely. Here it looks like it should, but as you can see V*T*E is redlindlinked. In Run for Tunis, the last page where I added it, it also look as it should (albeit with V*T*E redlinked), but in the preceding ones you can only see Dakar, Gabon, Exporter, Torch, Vercors in the box. Check Battle of Dakar, Battle of Gabon, Battle of Keren, Operation Exporter, Battle of Bir Hakeim to see for yourself.

I have absolutely no idea why it is so.

I don't know where to bring this kind of technical issues, it there is a better forum please tell me; thanks in advance, <small style="color:green">walk <i style="color:green">victor falk</i><i style="color:green">talk</i> 19:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * it was the difference between the parameter  |name=Free French  and the actual template name "Campaignbox Free French". GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks a bunch Graeme! Cheers, <small style="color:green">walk <i style="color:green">victor falk</i><i style="color:green">talk</i> 23:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the 11 aircraft carriers requirement article?
Eleven has been highly notable for several years, but I don't see the main article for the concept.

http://www.stripes.com/navy-s-top-admiral-reducing-carrier-fleet-would-burn-out-sailors-ships-1.284362

Any suggestions? Hcobb (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A "must have 11 aircraft carriers" article would not be notable in and of itself. However History of the United States Navy aircraft carrier force might well be worth something. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Tucking it in w/just USN history at the moment. Feel free to expand with congressional debate etc. (Check CRS reports ISTR.) Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

RM needs attention
Just a heads up, I relisted a move request on the talk page for Participants in World War II. The request has been open almost a month and could use some input from people more familiar with the topic (any input at all would be helpful).  Calidum Talk To Me 23:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 22/05
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/POWs from the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Draft:Denel FT-5 LAW
 * Draft:Dirk Van Raalte. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Borne Sulinowo
Added a MILHIST template to Borne Sulinowo, a locality in Poland. Review of the article will indicate why. This area was once Gross-Born, a major German Army training area that was later used by the Soviet Union for military purposes. Those who enjoy Cold War and World War Two history may enjoy reviewing this article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Roger S. Correll
Is it time for an article on Roger S. Correll?


 * http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/104952/roger-s-correll.aspx
 * http://bigstory.ap.org/article/contracting-officers-new-job-raises-questions

Hcobb (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Shigisan
See talk:Battle of Shigisan where a discussion on the scope, naming and topic of this article is going on. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Öland needs attention
A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Öland; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

British Official History
History of the Great War Would someone mind having a look at this page to see what changes are necessary to improve it from start class please?Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone? An example would help. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Quick thoughts from me. At the moment, it reads like a collection of review summaries, based around Travers, Green etc. At B class, I'd be expecting to see a section or two on how the History was written, edited, who paid for it, what argument it put across (if any), etc., before the article then got onto describing the later historiography of the History. I'm assuming that it was originally under Crown Copyright... if so, it should now have expired, and an illustration or two from the History would help bring the article to life. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a great help, the stuff from Travers and Green has been parked there for want of a better alternative but I can work it in to the structure you suggest. Parts of 1914 are on Archives org so I can pillage them. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Distinguished Service Order and bar
Hi, if someone received DSO and bar, how do I display that in the awards section of an infobox? For his DSC and bar there is File:UK DSC w bar BAR.svg, is such a thing for DSO relevant? Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 15:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Found File:DSO bar stripe.svg (not in article). Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  15:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is something we're often revisiting here; some of us would prefer you didn't add images of medal ribbons to infoboxes, or anywhere else in biographical articles for that matter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy? (I copied the method from Audie Murphy.) Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  16:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but there are numerous discussions on this page. Check the archives. Nthep (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, there have been several discussions with none of them resulting in a consensus. Is that correct? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * tl;dr US editors like the colorful Awards and decorations section of the article. Brits do not like it, while other commonwealth country editors seem to be split. The infobox seems less common. Editing at Audie Murphy has been hotly contested at times, so I don't know if I would use it as an exemplar. EricSerge (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well... I am a Brit, but I don't do much at Mil Hist and don't have a preference either way. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

TFAR for 6 June
As a notification, I've started a discussion of the two possibilities for a main page appearance to mark the upcoming 70th anniversary of D-Day at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Normandy Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Announcements templates
WP:VG recently started using a version of your announcements template (WPVG announcements. I made a few fixes on top of it, if whomever works on your announcements template is interested (mainly using flatlist and bullets for easier listing, and the new GAN link and its variants to detect whether a nom currently exists and, at least for us, to put the nom link aside the article link—it's also easier to maintain). FYI czar ♔  14:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The usage of is under discussion, see Talk:Armia Krajowa, where it is proposed that  be renamed to "Home Army" -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A Class reassessment for American Civil War
For anyone interested pls have a look at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/American Civil War. The article failed a GAR awhile ago but seems to have retained its A class assessment. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 26/05
Draft:152nd New York Regiment. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Draft:Beretta 70. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/05
What's up with this? Draft:United States Transportation Corps. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/45 Model 1926
Dear weaponry experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be saved and improved instead? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a notable topic, though it should probably be renamed, either to 38.1 cm /45 Model 1926 naval gun or 15 inch Mk B naval gun. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Parsecboy, for checking this out. I've postponed its deletion for six months. Now it awaits a willing editor who will add some sources.  I don't know anything about weaponry myself. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

French prisoners of war in World War II GA-nominated
Please participate in the review here: Talk:French prisoners of war in World War II/GA1. Thank you! <small style="color:green">walk <i style="color:green">victor falk</i><i style="color:green">talk</i> 05:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Review needed at Draft:RCAF Station Jarvis
Thanks for any help from the experts for this review: Draft:RCAF Station Jarvis. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

TFA requests and "advance bookings"
For those of you who I've not met before, I'm the TFA coordinator (i.e. I decide which featured articles run as "Today's Featured Article" on the main page, whether through nominations at the requests page, TFAR or off my own bat). MilHist is obviously one of the most productive Wikiprojects around as there are about 250 warfare-related FAs yet to appear on the main page, about 19% of the total. I try to run a good variety of warfare-related articles each month and fortunately there is a lot of choice (biographies, old and new; ships; battles; units; incidents and operations, and so on) - I aim for about 5 or 6 per month. The list of possible articles is here.

I know that there will be quite a few 70th anniversaries coming up for the closing year of WW2 and quite a few 100th anniversaries for WW1, so I would urge MilHist editors to put possible "dates for the diary" in at the "pending requests" page (WP:TFARP) as it helps with forward planning to know what people think it might be nice to run within the next 12 months. Even if you don't do this, do try out the new-look WP:TFAR system to nominate an article - unlike the "old days", no points calculations are required, and hopefully it's an easier system generally. If you can't understand the system but would like to nominate something that you or others have worked on, drop me a line and I'll do my best to help.

Articles don't need to have a date connection to run - so if you think that a particular article would be good for any free date, there's a special non-specific date section you can use. Obviously we want some variety on the main page and I would be unlikely to run two similar articles too close together, but in fact nearly all articles that are nominated at WP:TFAR run when requested, or soon afterwards. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 12:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Georgia Hussars/1st Regiment of Georgia Cavalry
I'm hoping someone here can help me identify a Georgia regiment. The article on Peter Meldrim noted that he was a member of the "Georgia Hussars"; I couldn't find a supporting ref for that but his NYT obit mentions that he was a colonel in the "First Regiment of Georgia Cavalry". I can't figure out what, if anything, I can link to from that -- can anyone tell me what article this would correspond to? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * National Guard lineages tend to be quite convoluted and can even trace back to Confederate units (which is likely what you've stumbled across). Intothatdarkness 21:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it might not be National Guard, because the obit specifically said he was a colonel in the National Guard but a brigadier-general in the Cavalry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Definately sounds like the 1st Georgian Cavalry Regiment from the Civil War. The Georgian Civil War Cavalry Regiments, other than the 5th, do not have articles because there is so little info about them.  "Georgia Hussars" might be the predecessor of the unit, or maybe the nickname (ie the 3rd was "Crawford's"). Gecko G (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the best link for this -- thanks for the info. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Georgia Hussars" appears to be a unit tied to Savannah -- see this page Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The World Wars
I wonder how many well-intentioneed but inaccurate edits we can expect from the recent mini-series on The "History" Channel. There appears to have been one already on George S. Patton (already corrected). Watching the show was an experience. It was interesting to "learn" that MacArthur had five stars in the thirties.
 * I saw the program.  It's a reader's digest version of a reader's digest article,  FULL of erroneous 'facts'.  Especially the one about Patton not going to France until the Battle of the Bulge and "saving" the 101st Airborne.   I expected so much better from the History Channel.  Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 29/05
Draft:Ahurastan. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Article to be created request: 33rd Cavalry Regiment (United States)
There is already a 33rd Armor Regiment article. This regiment has been renamed the 33rd Cavalry Regiment, and this change of designation is mentioned in the article, along with mention of the 1-33 Cavalry's service since creation in 2005. Suggest a new article about the 33rd Cavalry Regiment is unnecessary. It may be desirable to move the 33rd Armor Regiment article name to 33rd Cavalry Regiment. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest leaving it as the 33rd Armor, since that's the unit that has a longer history and heritage at this point. Intothatdarkness 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A redirect, however, would be appropriate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ 33rd Cavalry Regiment. EricSerge (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Cruel Slaughter of Adolf Hitler by Karsten Friedrich (2012)
Anyone have access to this source? There are a few "dubious" and "citation needed" at Battle of Greece which I believe could be resolved by this source. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is an online copy by Google if it helps The Cruel Slaughter of Adolf Hitler by Karsten Friedrich Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It uses the spelling "Victorys" in one of its chapter heading. I think this is self-published, therefore not meeting WP:RS. Brigade Piron (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes: it seems to have been self-published via Lulu.com: see http://www.lulu.com/shop/karsten-friedrich/the-cruel-slaughter-of-adolf-hitler-ii/paperback/product-14728121.html


 * See also the resemblance between the blurb on http://www.lulu.com/shop/karsten-friedrich/the-cruel-slaughter-of-adolf-hitler/ebook/product-17355043.html and Portal:United States/Selected article/15, and also the resemblance between the text beginning "The left column also enjoyed early success" on the first full page of the Google Books preview cited above and the text of Battle of Arras (1940). Is this one of these Wikipedia-sourced books? If so, it would not only not be a WP:RS, it would be a self-reference back to Wikipedia's own text, and thus not an external source at all. -- The Anome (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And Worldcat says dingadingadingading. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd also note that, if it is in whole or in substantial part a distillation of Wikipedia content, I haven't so far been able to find the necessary licensing and acknowledgment info anywhere in the text: in particular, the copyright notice at the front of the book makes no mention of any other authorship, saying any other use of the content "is illegal and punishable". -- The Anome (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And it appears to have already been used as a source in at least two articles, and discussed on a number of talk pages: see this search: -- The Anome (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've pulled it from the two articles it was being used in. Good catch on this one everybody. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Howdy - was starting to suspect this myself so cheers all for sorting this out. Still the issue with the dubious and cn tags at Battle of Greece though. I've posted on the talk page there. Would be good to try and find a source for these as its an FA but doesn't really meet the grade the moment unless this can be resolved. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ This has been sorted now (at least to me). Thank you all. Anotherclown (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 01/06
Draft:Camp Stanley (Texas). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Draft:Tarlok Singh (soldier). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

481st Night Fighter Operational Training Group
I've just completed writing this article, along with writing or upgrading all 21 USAAF night fighter squadron articles. Also in commons, I've gone though the images of the P-61 Black Widow and organized them; adding numerous additional photos and sorting out the individual squadron emblems. Most of the squadron articles will need to be re-rated by reviewers Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Gun carriage article?
Our article on the Gun carriage has been merged with Limbers and caissons which is a related but different subject. Apparently there was some copyright violation but it seems a bit extreme to merge it with an article which is about something else. Alansplodge (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * From 2009 to 2013, it was a redirect to limbers/caissons. In 2013, the article was created using copyvio text. So, it was returned to being a redirect. I agree that a separate article should be created though. Or atleast stubbify with information about gun mount while awaiting the creation of such an article. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I put quite a lot of text on there myself, so I might be able to put something together tonight. Many thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now done - see Gun carriage. Any contributions welcome. Alansplodge (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad Khan Bangash
Was this officer really notable? Bearian (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 02/05
Draft:Battlefield Coordination Detachment (US Army). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Draft:Rebecca Kellogg Ashley. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Indian Wars (United States) military campaign
I have been working to link the American Campaigns together as designated by the United States military. The problem is that there are at least two frames to view these through: first the United States Military and the National Park Service. (There are most certainly other view points.)

There currently is an article entitled American Indian Wars that is mucked in the mire of genocide, and other problems of the war. Personally, I believe that each of the military campaigns as outlined by the US Military should be an article, but that might be another subject.

This is an article that I would begin, as with other missing military campaigns. One comment on the talk page of American Indian Wars is that this topic is only about lineage, but I believe it is a little more than that... but that could just be me.

Finally, I hope this was the appropriate place to add this topic. If it belongs somewhere else, please let me know. Greg (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned on the American Indian Wars talk page, the Army's list of Indian campaigns that you're referencing is for lineage purposes. If it wasn't, you would see the Red River War (for example) marked out specifically instead of being buried in the nebulous Comanche Campaign stuff. There would likely be value in an article spelling out the uses of the CMH's campaign list, but it shouldn't be confused with an actual chronology of the Indian Wars or the flow of the conflict. Intothatdarkness 16:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm back
Sorry it's been a bit; I kind of burned out a little bit in May, but I'm back and shall try to get a fair few MILHIST FPs in. Current plan is Robert Smalls next, though his is somewhat badly damaged (loads and loads of spotting) so I might do another less-damaged one while getting through him. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to have you back! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 04/06
Draft:Tom Rees (pilot). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have declined this one at the moment. Though the article is well written and thorough, I don't think Mr. Rees is notably beyond being the first 'victim' of the Red Baron, and per WP:ONEEVENT and the idea that notability ought not to be sponged off of a notable subject to feed a small off-shoot topic, I would think the subject rates a short mentioned in the parent article on the Red Baron rather than a stand alone page. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. What about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brigadier Michael J Stone? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sexual orientation and military service
Recruiting military history participants to support Wiki Loves Pride throughout the month of June by improving LGBT-related military articles in the category Category:Sexual orientation and military service. All constructive edits are welcome in order to help Wikipedia provide accurate information about the intersection of sexual orientation and military history. Be sure to share the results of your work here! Thanks for your consideration. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Armed Forces Bikers
Would someone please investigate this edit which changed the official external link in Armed Forces Bikers. The edit is incorrect. What it intended to do was change the first of the following to the second:
 * http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/
 * http://www.armedforcesbikers.co.uk

This was raised at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 165 by someone who apparently believes that the britishlegion link is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Monthly contest reminder
G'day all, just a friendly reminder that for entries to be included, they need to be assessed by another editor. If you are assessing an article, please fill out the B-Class checklist fully. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * An update on this, I plan to remove the entries that weren't independently assessed, then tally up the May contest. If anyone has any objections, please speak now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * None, here, although I wouldn't worry about C and below ratings.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Storm, we want independent assessment for B-Class or above, we've always self-assessed Stub or Start-Class, and I don't know if we've had a guideline for C-Class but I don't have a particular issue with self-assessment there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok by me. I'll check the rest (except mine), and if someone could check mine I'll tally etc. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Great minds, I'm checking your entries as we speak... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Fremont Rocket
I created Fremont Rocket, but I have almost no knowledge of rockets, missiles, etc. I am sure this article could be categorized more appropriately, and a quick glance at the sources used to construct the short article should yield more detail about the rocket itself. Just an FYI in case someone has a few minutes to check it out! Kind of an interesting article/subject. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the photo Fremont Rocket, Fremont, Seattle, Washington. It is not a real rocket, but a Fairchild C-119 tail boom modified to resemble a missile. It was rescued from a defunct downtown Seattle surplus store, and is now a symbol of the Fremont neighborhood. -- So this is a piece of an airplane, thus it should be categorized under artwork and sculpture -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Tom Rees (pilot)
Some disagreement on this persons notability. Is he notable enough for an article on him? Can someone weigh in? Ta, --S.G.(GH) ping! 09:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Longbow use in battle
Was the longbow always used as a barrage weapon or are there examples of "sniping" by longbow in the historical record of the medieval era? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Has this project's scope narrowed down to only US military history? The systemic bias is so rampant on this page that one might even think this is Yankopedia, not Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's the nature of your question. Intothatdarkness 15:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The systemic bias is blatantly obvious, just take a look at the topics on this page, practically all of the sections with more than two or three posts or participants are about American subjects. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No...you aren't looking back far enough. This page archives pretty regularly, and has been dominated by discussions about Australians in WW 1, German pilots, and so on. If anything, it suffers from recentism. As for your question... Bows are obviously both barrage weapons and (relatively) precision weapons depending on range, the nature of the engagement, and so on. I'm not aware of an instance where a leader was targeted by an individual archer during this period, but I'm also not a medieval specialist. Did archers engage individual targets as range decreased? I'm sure they did. Is that "sniping"? No. Intothatdarkness 16:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you've got access to a library (or a wealthy patron!), you could try The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, which might have something on this. It's a big old volume though, and beyond my financial means... Hchc2009 (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll try a university library. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not spotting this sooner. Evidence for "sniping" is certainly rare in field actions - there are a couple of anecdotes from the Wars of the Roses that might point this way (from Battle of Ferrybridge and Battle of Nibley Green) but they are tied up with an alleged personal vendetta between the archer and the senior commander he shoots.  Both these battles were essentially large skirmishes, so this may have played a part in tactics used.  Numerous examples of senior commanders being struck in the face or neck by arrows may be interpretted as a targeted "sniping" approach but could also be down to the fact that there were a lot of arrows flying about and these commanders happened to be hit (a commander perhaps being more likely to raise his visor to observe and be heard better).  In terms of books, have a look at Mike Loades Osprey on the Longbow for his discussion on individual shooting v. volleys and also Chapter 15 in Strickland and Hardy The Great Warbow on the aiming for the face issue. Full refs for both at English Longbow Monstrelet (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this info - I have some good leads to research now. I'm planning to do some work on the history of sniping. The history section of the Sniper article currently starts with the American Revolution and the introduction of the rifled musket, I'm trying to see if it can be stretched back to before firearms. Apologies for my earlier impatience.Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You may find some useful material from sieges for the earlier period e.g. The death of Richard I at Chaluz in 1199, the legend of Peter Heynoe (or de Heynoe) at the siege of Carisbrooke in 1377, the story of "Dumb" Dyott at the first siege of Lichfield in 1643. The Dyott story is, in a slightly obscure form, already in the article in the list of examples at the bottom. Monstrelet (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Input at Draft:Allied Purges in Europe 1944-1947
Is this a valid topic, or simply a WP:Coatrack? Any input from MILHIST folks on the draft appreciated. You can just post comments at the top of the actual draft if you like. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like a coatrack of unrelated articles to me. It includes the dubiously referenced article on the Communist purges in Serbia. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peacemaker67: we already have articles on most of these population movements, and labelling them 'purges' seems rather POV. Nick-D (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Article on a VC recipient
G'day all, in my travels today I came across an article on Lionel Rees, a Welsh VC recipient from the First World War. I did a bit of tidying up, but unfortunately I don't have sources to finish what has been started. It is a pretty mature article, having been developed quite well long before I got there, and has a bit of content, so it probably wouldn't need much work to get it to B-class if anyone has the necessary references, and is keen to work on it. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.comandosupremo.com
Anyone have any experience with http://www.comandosupremo.com? The site is down, but there is a lot of use of this website for claims of battle prowess by the Italian Army in WWII. Apparently, once upon a time (2011), there was a sockmaster called Generalmesse who used this site extensively. It is down at present, so it is a bit difficult to assess unless someone is already familiar with it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From searching in Google books, it's cited in a few professionally published works by well regarded historians so it's likely to be OK. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It was okay as far as Italian forces went. You can see an archived version at web.archive.org W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Interceptor aircraft
Is anybody interested in giving this article a revamp with me? It's an odd subject, as "interceptor" is one of those military terms that's changed meaning at least 2 or 3 times since WWII. Currently the article is very WWII-centric, particularly in the lead, and I'd like to see some more focus on the evolution of "interceptor" from specialized aircraft towards a specific defensive role filled by regular all-rounder fighters. Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with a move
I discovered Sidi Barrani (Battle), could someone aid with a move over the redirect Battle of Sidi Barrani? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WWII vets
With the 70th (aka Diamond) anniversary of D-Day commemorations going on, I was wondering if we (MILHIST) should give thanks to Wikipedian editors who are WWII Allied forces vets for their service? (ie. leave a message on their talk pages)

I don't know how many there are or who they are, and the only one I knowingly have interacted with on Wikipedia has passed away, so that may also pose a problem with my proposal. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If anyone knows of any vets I think thanks should definitely be given. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  11:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I will pass on the thanks to a Mosquito SQNLDR (DFC and bar and now Legion of Honour (fr)) that is visiting France just now, but will be home soon. Believe it or not, most of the WWII veterans I know think they were just doing what needed doing, and that it was nothing special. Gotta love em, a real generational thing. I'm not aware of any editing on WP. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 13:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know one, and anyone who wants to give thanks can review his current FAC! - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Films about trials for war crimes: within scope?
Hi everybody. I'm doing a little bit of work that falls under this project's scope again (you may have seen the recent Merdeka 17805 article), and I was wondering if the film Pride (currently in a sandbox) fits. It is about the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, with a focus on Hideki Tōjō. Feedback much appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say so. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Article is at Pride in case any latecomers want to have a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 09/06
Would any of you have a say here? Draft:Allied Civilian Purges in Europe 1944-1947. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Allied Civilian Purges in Europe 1944-1947: coatrack or valid?
Can any post-WWII experts opine as to whether this is a valid new topic, or is it a WP:Coatrack of the various articles we already have about expelling Germans and the like (which the draft itself links to)? If you have any comments, feel free to simply post them directly in the top margin of Draft:Allied Civilian Purges in Europe 1944-1947 with the other comments. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not an expert, but the fact that this was created by a single purpose account with the name SeekingFacts is a giant red flag.  Calidum Talk To Me 04:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a POV disaster. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Luftwaffe Fliegerführer
Could a WW2/Luftwaffe expert have a look at this article? Its missing a lead so not sure what its supposed to be about and its an orphan. Thanks Gbawden (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K-YBS500
Hello weaponry experts: Here's an abandoned AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest at it. Is this a notable topic? It's short on references. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears to be covered under LS PGB. I'm not sure if it warrants a separate article at this point. Kirill [talk] 23:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Any additional content not already covered can be merged into that page. I'm not sure whether a separate article is necessary, I'll leave that up to everyone else to decide. -- benlisquare T•C•E 08:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

What rank makes an officer notable without other factors?
I have found someone who was just made a Brigadier General in the US Air Force, who I was wondering if that was enough to justify creating an article on him. Is he notable by virtue of that rank, or is that not enough?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MILPEOPLE specifies general/ flag officers are notable. Typically anyone who has been nominated by the President and approved by Congress is notable. Often there are other sources available about their careers. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I found this recently archived discussion on the matter enlightening. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, while that says "general/flag officer", I'd say that our actual practice is perhaps more restrictive - major-generals and up are treated as probably notable (at least if they had a notable-seeming appointment such as divisional command) while brigadiers are much more frequently challenged. I'd tend to say "unlikely unless there's something particularly significant about their work". Andrew Gray (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Brigadier Generals are notable under WP:SOLDIER. Go ahead and create the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As an example, I've created an article on one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless this project has its own criteria that set aside those of the rest of wikipedia, notability is a function of sources, not ranks or titles. Also if we read the text of WP:SOLDIER it doesnt say that Brigadier generals are notable, it says that they will normally have enough coverage in third party sources for them to be notable. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That isn't a completely accurate characterisation of WP:SOLDIER. What it means is that if an officer is a one-star or higher, it is much more likely that he or she will have sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources to be notable (per WP:GNG), if people dig enough in the right places (we hope MILHIST members know where to look). As has been pointed out ad nauseam when these issues are raised, there are plenty of brigadiers who would not be notable, even in Australia where our army is quite small (in comparison with the US for example). Essentially we try to give the benefit of the doubt to one-stars unless they are clearly shown to fall short of the GNG (which of course, some do). Most two-stars will meet GNG. Where SOLDIER is particularly useful is where the subject has a number of "notable" aspects, like rank, awards, command etc. If, for example, a brigadier has commanded a brigade on operations, and has been decorated, it is much more likely that they will meet GNG due to media interest. A brigadier that has worked in army headquarters with a small staff, and has not been decorated, is much less likely to meet GNG. It is as simple as that, it is our internal guideline, and we do not claim it trumps GNG in any respect. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, over time we have found that general officers invariably attract sufficient attention by virtue of the responsible positions they tend to hold (rather than by their rank per se) to generate sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not invariably. I think that more accurately stated what you have found is that American officers of the 2st century automatically generate enough webbased content to base a wikipedia article on them. I doubt very much if the same holds for Latvian or Bhutanese officers, or for all American officers in the 19th century for example. But yes, what creates notability is the coverage not the rank. But rank tends to correlate with coverage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not quantity alone that makes the grade. The "enough web-based content" for (eg American) officers still needs to pass the requirement of "independent of the subject"; so running a search engine over the DoD websites ought not be sufficient to show notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the coverage can't simply be the officer's bio at the unit s/he currently commands or the staff position s/he occupies. There must be non-trivial coverage in independent sources (these will be primarily news articles but will also include books) - which is to say, there needs to be more than a simple off-hand mention of a given name (forex, in an article about some significant change in a given military, a simple note that General X was one of those involved doesn't cut it). Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Franco-Prussian War question
Hi all - I've slowly been chipping away at the Franco-Prussian War article and I have a question. Someone added the lines "However, French historians such as Philippe Séguin have disputed [the assertion that Napoleon and Ollivier wanted war]. Séguin noted that Bismarck was determined to have a war, that Napoleon III was perfectly aware of the weakness of the French Army, had no wish at all to enter the war, and was only pressured by the French press and public opinion." First off, does anyone know if this is actually a view widely held by French historians? I ask because Séguin was a politician, not a historian, and his Telegraph obituary notes that he was a "great admirer" of Napoleon III, which doesn't give me a great deal of confidence that he was wholly unbiased on the issue. Thanks for any help! Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 11/06
Draft:Perry M. Smith (general). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. --S.G.(GH) ping! 18:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The usage of is under discussion, see Talk:August Faction Incident -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

MiCOTW
has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania leaflet for the project?
Has anyone see this wikiproject leaflets proposal? It might be worth having one for this project and it's fairly easy to do! Brigade Piron (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We've already submitted a request for one, if I'm not mistaken. Kirill [talk] 13:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

May article writing contest results
G'day all, the May contest is done and dusted, with Parsecboy first past the post on 45 points from 5 entries for the Wikichevrons, and my good self a short nose behind on 41 points from 7 entries for the Writer's Barnstar. A tight group followed the leaders over the line, with The Bushranger on 27 points from 10 entries, Ian Rose with 25 points from 3 articles and Lineagegeek with 24 points from 5 articles. Other runners were Djmaschek with 12 points from 2 entries, Tomobe03 with 10 points from 2 entries, Zawed with 6 points from 2 articles, and Gecko G with 5 points from his first entry in the contest. Well done to Parsecboy (yet again), I'll award his WikiChevrons, if someone would do the honours with the barnstar pour moi. Get your entries in for this month's contest here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

, can someone do the honours please, I've awarded Parsecboy's WikiChevrons. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's done, and tks for collecting the results, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, was crook at home and would otherwise have been twiddling my thumbs... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Help on image for Minerva Armored Car?
It's a 1914 vehicle so there must be some good PD images, but I'm not expert on image rights issues for this area. I'm seeing some good high-res images but with annoying watermarks, and not sure what/how/if to remove. Anyone good with images that can knock this one out right-quick? I've been really surprised that this vehicle didn't have an image up to this point. Seeing some great photos online, and also some cool engravings like this one:. Thanks for any aid on adding images, text, improving links. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The IWM has several, here. At least one of them falls under the IWN Non-Commercial Licence. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion
It has been proposed to merge the Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down article into the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article. You are welcome to comment at Talk:Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Battlefield Coordination Detachment (US Army)
This draft needs some help from someone well versed in the ways and systems of the modern US Army. It is currently very light on references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Military patrol
I just noticed isn't about military patrols, it's a sport article. Do we have a military patrol article? And isn't this a WP:ASTONISHing subject to occupy this pagename? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Patrolling covers (briefly!) the military tactic. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The sporting usage is well known and is specifically named, whereas I think one would use Patrol (military) as opposed to Patrol (police) if one wanted it as a wiki disambiguation. I've added a hatnote for those who come to it by mistake, though Monstrelet (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
After watching a fascinating program about the historical events about the 24 hours after the Kennedy Assassination, I've added sections to the Carswell Air Force Base and Dallas Love Field articles about the historic events that took place at those facilities on Air Force One. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

North African operations during World War I
North African operations during World War I Does anyone know why the campaign box label is running off the right hand side of the screen? regardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at it now. There were square brackets around the "title", and that was apparently causing problems. W. B. Wilson (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I bow to the power of your Wikimojo.Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Dubious edits by IP
Please can someone review recent ship-related edits by User:94.193.131.142? They are uncited, and some remove images. There are vandal warnings on the talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User talk:94.193.131.142 Hamish59 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor in question is making some very strange edits - for example see here where the editor appears to be edit-warring with themselves. No edits are sourced.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Battle or action?
Battle of Le Mesnil-Patry is this a battle or an Action? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Both variants seem to be use from the basic pulls I've just done, but neither seem very extensively used. Unless there's a more definitive label in the texts cited in the article, I'd recommend "battle" as it reads more naturally to a non-specialist. (NB: this isn't my specialist field...!) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not an Affair then? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Military aviation combat losses
Following the creation of the article on the Ukrainian AF IL-76 shoot-down, the subject of military aviation combat losses has raised its head again. I know it will be a big task to list all military aviation combat losses, but is is something that should be achievable in the medium to long term (It's been done pretty well with ships lost during WWII, and not too badly for those lost in WWI). There are many books and magazines covering war-related topics, so referencing shouldn't be a problem!

I've started a list at User:Mjroots/List of military aircraft lost in combat setting out the scope and structure that I envisage the list (and its sublists) taking. Suggestions, ideas, questions etc at User talk:Mjroots/List of military aircraft lost in combat. Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that you're grossly underestimating the scale of the task you've set yourself unless they're confined to operations other than war like Chechneya, Ukraine, etc. Wartime losses in combat total somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 aircraft with the exact cause of loss unknown for many aircraft. I suppose that a loose definition of lost during an operational sortie/shot down by an enemy aircraft could be used to separate out training losses, but still...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree. You'd also have to determine what's going to count as a combat loss, which isn't always an easy thing to sort through (I'm thinking here of US helicopter losses in Vietnam, and you may see the same thing with the Soviets in Afghanistan). Intothatdarkness 17:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, & add another wrinkle: how do you count (frex) the helos counted "lost" by the U.S. Army in 'nam that were salvaged & put back in service...?   TREKphiler  <sup style="font-family:cursive; color:#008000">any time you're ready, Uhura  17:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll cpoy your comments over, will address them there. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 18/06
Draft:Ernest Herman Buehl. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Help: Image selection
I want to illustrate Alexander's Bridge, an important strategic feature of the Battle of Gaines's Mill. However, I have two possibilities, and I'm not sure which is better: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.20013/ or http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.20014/ - Both are excellent watercolours, both are contemporaneous, and... I can't decide. Please advise. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First one Bwmoll3 (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, first one. Hamish59 (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get on that! While I'm at it, here's the other images by this artist: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=Mcilvaine%20William - do you see any images of particular value in it that I should prioritise? Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You could download them to your computer, then upload them to commons    Then once you have put them into the appropriate category,    put a link into the desired article to that commons catagory using this template

(example)  Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While true, there is some prep work needed on them - the LoC scans with low colour fidelity, and with wide borders around the paper. I find it takes about 2-4 hours to do it right (probably will decrease as I work through the list, admittedly), so prioritizing helps. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Bibliographical details search
The Landings in Normandy. The Liberation of North-West Europe: Operation "Overlord" III. RAF Air Historical Branch Records (typed manuscript).

Does anyone know the rest of the details for this source? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Typed manuscript" strongly suggests never published & held in an archive, which suggests there won't be a full citation. I think most AHB material would now be held by the National Archives. Does the source give any reference numbers etc? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly not, a couple of RAF websites like list the title The Liberation of North West Europe (in 5 Volumes) Vol 3 The Landings in Normandy but that's all. In RAF raid on La Caine HQ (1944) there are references to it so I had hoped that something would turn up.Keith-264 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha - if you dig back in that article's history you find the citation rendered as "RAF Air Historical Branch Records (typed manuscript), The Liberation of North-West Europe - Operation "Overlord", Volume 3 - The Landings in Normandy, pages 129 and 130.". Someone came along and tidied it to "III", which made me think the title was actually intended to be '"Overlord" III' in some form. You can see a few citations of it here.
 * However, this seems to still be an archive document; this 2011 book cites it as TNA. It seems to be catalogued as AIR 41/27, written in 1947 (presumably for RAF internal use) but never formally published. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That was me.... I've gleaned a bit more from your findings but I'll have to find a better source. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Unwieldy title question
Attack on Panzer Group West's headquarters at La Caine is a bit long-winded, would anyone support a change to Attack at La Caine (1944) or some such? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the current title is rather unwieldy. How about Raid on La Caine? There's always the La Caine affair as you suggested a couple sections above ;) Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The French Job? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ,, what about RAF raid on the La Caine HQ? "Raid on La Caine" could imply it is the common/official name. Though ideally, it would be The Dirty Dozen, but from the air and with Brits... <small style="color:green">walk <i style="color:green">victor falk</i><i style="color:green">talk</i> 08:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fnar! RAF raid on La Caine HQ (1944) OK?
 * Is there a need for the year dab? Is there another raid it could be confused with? Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe, the raff is nearly 100 years old and its done a lot of raids. I don't mind if you whip it ahrt though.Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but has it done other raids on an HQ at La Caine? :P I chopped it off. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Task Force - periods and conflicts
It seems that this WP needs a task force to cover post Cold War events. The Cold War Task Force states that it covers events from 1945 to ~1989. May I suggest a 21st Century TF could cover events from 1990 to the present? Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Task forces are not intended to cover a given period/topic, but rather to facilitate a group of editors working together to improve coverage of that topic. That said, they've been rather a failure unless a dedicated group keeps them alive. Forex, Operation Majestic Titan is semi-moribund at best with only 4 or so active editors and the Yugoslavia group is more active, but only slightly larger, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Majestic Titan and Operation Bora are more special projects than task forces aren't they, Sturm? Operation Bora is actually a special project of WikiProject Yugoslavia, not MILHIST. MILHIST doesn't have a task force that covers post-Cold War actions, and there are a series of chronologically-based "war" task forces up to 1989. Perhaps we should be considering expanding the "conflict" task forces to include the "War on Terror" or something similar, even if a "War on Terror" is an entirely ridiculous construct, IMO. Something covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to be needed. I have also wondered if there should be a "Peacekeeping" task force. thoughts? Regards, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 13:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not a simple "since 1990" task force, since "War on Terror" seems to limit our scope somewhat? <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 13:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing my main point that it's the editors who are important, nothing else. A task force without editors dedicated to that topic is pretty meaningless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, sort of. Not missing it, but bypassing it. Task forces serve a couple of purposes IMO, one is to aggregate editors that work on the subject (ie WWII), the other is to narrow that subject to articles that particularly interest editors. ie if I look at WWII taskforce articles there is a lot I am not interested in, if I look at WWII articles that intersect with the Balkan taskforce, I find there are a lot of articles I am interested in. Surely the same would apply to US task force articles that intersected with a post-Cold War task force? I agree with Cliftonian BTW, a "War of Terror" is nonsense, is US-centric, and isn't useful as it also limits scope. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians at the Pritzker Military Museum & Library are working on some of these current topics. We are also making a big push on WWI articles.  See: GLAM/Pritzker TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with another task force is that with a very limited number of exceptions (primarily the world war task forces) our entire task force structure is standing but non functional - by which I mean the infrastructure used on them how subdivide the articles we have but the editors we still retain no longer actively work through task forces. In fact at one point we actually decommissioned and merged a handful of the small task forces in order to reduce the overhead. Now I'm not saying that we couldn't move forward here, but something that needs to be kept in mind with regards to the task forces and the special projects is that even if we create them if there are no editors working on them or with them then the purpose of the creation of said task force or special project is lost. Even OMT hasn't been immune from this drop in participation, with the listed thirty dwindling down to three or four active editors and a handful of drive by participants. If you're hellbent on seeing this through then go for it, just don't expect people to be particularly active within your task force. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Torpedo question
Is the DTCN F17 the same as the ECAN F17? Gbawden (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks likely - the "ECAN Mod 2" has the same details as the "Mod 2" in the cited link for DTCN. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Operation Shingle or Battle of Anzio?
There's a discussion underway. Please chime in. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Debark
The name of Debark (ship) is under discussion, see talk:Debark (ship) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

is this project dead?
i have been editing by myself for a little while. it would be cool to edit in teams with others, so we can encourage one another and so forth. any interest let me know Happy   monsoon  day   20:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope, we're very much alive. Do you have any articles in particular for which you'd like to gauge interest? Parsecboy (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've seen cases where an article has been mentioned as needing attention and The Assyrian the editors came down like the wolf on the fold. A steer towards something in need of help makes a change from tidying formatting and fending off the vandal hordes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

ACR needing one more review
G'day all, WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Pevensey Castle has been open since 8 May and has two supports thus far. Needs another review if you can spare some time and know your castles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

2nd Odon Map review request
would people scrutinise this map from the Graphics Lab for suggestions please? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The corps on the right is wrong. It should be the British XII Corps, not XXII Corps. And the corps boundary should have three XXX (corps) not four (army). Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've passed that on and mentioned the 12th SS and Panzer-Lehr divisions. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the second draft. I've asked for an extra "X" for the Allied army boundary and for the 49th Division to be added. Any other suggestions welcome. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

General Alexander Mackay
I have just created a stub article on Alexander Mackay (British Army officer) (1717–1789). My interest in him was as a politician, but he also appears to have had a significant career in the British Army. He commanded British forces in Boston in 1769 in the early stages of the American Revolution, and later became Commander-in-Chief, Scotland.

Military history is not my field, but I wonder if anyone from this project may be interested in expanding the article. There is a potential DYK hook in his capture (as a young officer) by Jacobite forces at the Battle of Prestonpans. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have expanded with information on his commissions and postings from the London Gazette and from this source. The latter has some potentially interesting political snippets that might be included, but I'll leave that to more experienced editors in the field.  It is of sufficient length for a DYK if you'd like to nominate.  Hope that helps - Dumelow (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone interested?
Being the knucklehead I am, I twice bought the book:

I am willing to give one of my copies to anyone willing to pay the for postage and handling fees. I am not asking any money for the book itself. Anyone interested? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)