Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 79

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

→

Archive 85

Army Air Corps

Greetings from WikiProject Disambiguation. The article Army Air Corps was formerly about the British unit of that name. This was wrong for a majority of the links there, so an editor wisely moved it to Army Air Corps (United Kingdom) and made Army Air Corps a dab page. That caused it to show up on the list, and I set about disambiguating 400+ links. Most of them were obvious, but I found some odd cases, and ended up confused on some points.

US: According to United States Army Air Corps (and several other articles), the U.S. Army Air Service was renamed U.S. Army Air Corps on July 2, 1926. However, there are many uses of the term "Army Air Corps" prior to that. I assumed that this was just sloppy use of "Army Air Corps" as a retronym to refer to it's predecessor agencies, so I changed them to United States Army Air Service (not just piped, but changed the text) save one from 1917 which I changed to Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps. However, I then stumbled across Erwin R. Bleckley. Bleckley received a posthumous MoH after he was killed in France on October 6, 1918. The header of his MoH citation says "U.S. Army Air Corps". AIUI, the header of the MoH citation (the part preceding the word "Citation") is official text, copied and pasted from some official source, and therefore I don't change it, even when I have confirmed it's wrong (as with William D. Port). Is this a case of the Army itself using the term "Army Air Corps" as a retronym, or did the term "Army Air Corps" have some official meaning in 1918?

Also, for references 1942-1947, I linked to United States Army Air Corps rather than United States Army Air Forces, even though in many cases the latter is more accurate. I decided it is too hard for me to tell, so if the earlier editor used "Corps" I am letting that stand.

UK: According to Timeline of the British Army, the Army Air Corps was formed September 1, 1957. I find many references to Army Air Corps from WWII which are clearly UK not US. The article James Fitzmaurice (pilot) says "He joined the Army Air Corps in 1919". When was "Army Air Corps" first used for a British unit? What does the 1957 date refer to? The info in the timeline is confusing.

Also I was stumped by Solder wick, which contains no hints to distinguish US v UK.  Randall Bart   Talk  00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the UK Army Air Corps was re-formed in 1957, having previously existed during World War II, the post-WWI reference might be to some of the Army cooperation squadrons which the RAF had at that date. I'm trying to use the London Gazette to track down details of Fitzmaurice, but no luck yet. David Underdown (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Special projects/Top Ten Team

Who is interested in helping get the ten most-read milhist articles to FA standard? The list is here and discussion is here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Special Projects Department is recruiting

University history students (or from other departments if adventurous) willing to undertake both off- and -on wiki tasks should sign up here. Buckshot06(prof) 07:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Eric Cole

I noticed that an article for Eric Cole had been put up for DYK, as initially written the article focussed on his (brief) first-class cricket career, but having done a brief bit of digging on his army career it looks as if he may be notable for that too (and his army career lasted much longer!). He picked up a Mention in Despatches at Dunkirk (though he was actually nominated for an MBE) for keeping 1 Corps comms going until the HQ was evacuated, and was wounded on the beaches. He then picked up a CBE at the end of the war, the Gazette notification says it was for services in Italy, but the original recommendation describes his unit as Land Forces Greece, and talks about him being Deputy Chief Signal Officer (British) at AFHQ from 28 September 1944 - 30 April 1945, prior to that Army Signal rep at combined Operations (where he is described as being largely responsible for the development of army signals techniques in amphibious ops), and afterwards OC 6 Airborne Divisional Signals. I assume therefore that the Gazette is right in attributing the award to actions in italy, and that Land Forces Greece is a bit of a red herring? I'm only working from the Gazette, and the digitised copies of the citations which are available from The National Archives website (for a fee if you don't happen to be onsite at Kew), so it's all a bit OR, and would be grateful if anyone knows of any other sources to flesh this out a bit. He was later promoted to major-general, and appointed Director of Telecoms at the war office in 1958(-61). David Underdown (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I managed to find a Times obit which filled in most of the detail, but if anyone can find anything else it would be very useful. David Underdown (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review

I have requested a peer review of the CIA main article, in order to gain some new perspective on the page. I invite anyone interested to please contribute their thoughts. Please find the peer review page for it here. Thanks! (Morethan3words (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Transcluded to the Milhist peer review list here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

We've a backlog of 40 articles at Category:Unassessed military history articles. It would be great if someone with a bit of time on their hands could assess them. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Central Intelligence Agency now open

The peer review for Central Intelligence Agency is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Mercy (AH-4) now open

The peer review for USS Mercy (AH-4) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Finland (ID-4543) now open

The peer review for USS Finland (ID-4543) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) now open

The peer review for USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Lenape (ID-2700) now open

The peer review for USS Lenape (ID-2700) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with a ribbon

On the final row here exists a ribbon called the Republic of Korean War Service Medal. I can't find the ribbon here, and was curious if anyone knows why. It may be that we don't have an article for it yet, but unto my experience these things are sometimes at pages whose names differ from the one provided elsewhere, and I just want to make sure that the latter scenario isn;t the case here. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the Korean War Service Medal, (a.k.a. Republic of Korea War Service Medal) but with the red and blue symbol from the Flag of South Korea stuck in the middle. Not sure what that's about. jwillbur 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight

Spotlight
An article covered by this WikiProject, Kristallnacht, is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 00:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell: The SS was involved and counts as a military unit. The article doesn't fully cover their role. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} We're not experts on the topic, just organisers. We have done a few minor fixes but can't do much to add to the factual content. Please feel free to join in, as I'm about to start on the facts...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Airborne March (Airborne Wandeltocht)

Hello. A heads up that the article Airborne March is up for AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Home Protector AfD relisted

The AfD discussion for Operation Iraqi Home Protector has been relisted in an attempt to reach a consensus. Comments on whether to keep or delete this article are encouraged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Iraqi Home Protector. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military brat (U.S. subculture)

I've nominated an article that I helped achieve FA status for FAR. I don't believe that this article is worthy of being an FA article anymore as garbage has creeped into it over the past year. My writing skills are not really up to FA standards and I'm honestly not motivated enough to restore this article to where it should be. If anybody else wants to work on it, feel free to do so.Balloonman (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion Needed

Warsaw Ghetto is tagged as being within our projects, scope, but I am more incline to reomve the tag since the key military event there was the uprising and that has its own article. Thoughts on this? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In case we cover the uprising there is no need to tag the ghetto.Wandalstouring (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wandalstouring. I'm removing the tag. -- saberwyn 12:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it WP:MILHIST

HI folks some thoughts are also required on another subject myself and Michael have been having a discussion here is the content

Malyshev Factory Hi. Why did you remove the milhist box from talk:Malyshev Factory? This was one of the three main tank factories of the USSR, and is the main tank producer for Ukraine, responsible for significant military vehicles (BT tank, T-34, T-54, T-64, T-80UD, T-84).Michael

Is it MILHIST ? see the articles for Boeing & Ford both made Aircraft and Armoured Vehicle during WWII , Boeing is still involved in Aircraft Manufacture but they are not classed as MILHIST. While the Factory may produce Military Equipment does that qualify it for MILHIST I do not believe so if you then consider they number of companys world wide who produce equipment for the armed forces the list would be neverending Jim Sweeney

[...]

I see your point, and at least the associated tank design bureau (KMDB) should remain in the project. Is there a guideline defining the scope for military industries within the project? Lockheed, for example, also has a milhist box. —Michael

Having checked further BAE Systems are listed as WP:MILHIST ,but Alvis Vickers who they merged with are not, also the three companies who produce the Eurofighter Alenia Aeronautica, BAE Systems (again) and EADS are listed as WP:MILHIST while the holding company they work througth Eurofighter GmbH is not. Should arms manufactures be in the project? If so where do we draw the line , as stated above the list could be endless Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it would depend on whether the group is primarily into weapons manufacture. Raytheon and Lockheed, for instance, would be in automatically in my book, but I wouldn't put Boeing in since I think of boeing as commercial jets and such and OFrd as creating lackluster vehicals. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There are great mergers among military manufacturers worldwide. Boeing is very much a military manufacturer, especially after it acquired the military aircraft firm, McDonnell Aviation, which had acquired Douglas (known for tactical fighters and for legendary transports like the DC-3/C-47). Some of its more notable military aircraft include the B-17, B-24, B-29, B-47, B-52, B-1 and B-2 (in partnerships), C-135, E-3, KC-135, CH-46, CH-47, F/A-18 (partnership), F-22 (partnership), V-22 Osprey and AH-64 Apache (partnerships). McDonnell-Douglas did the F-4 Phantom II, among many others. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for Boeing as MILHIST even w/o the (relatively) recent acquisition of McDonnell-Douglas, given its long history of military manufacturing as detailed by Howard above. Even the 707 and 747 were inspired by military transports or bids for same. Therefore I'd probably go for Malyshev Factory as MILHIST as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget mergers. Recall Boeing made fighters in the '20s & '30s before concentrating on civil aircraft. Trekphiler (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it a definition that any company that produces products for military use only is within our scope. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the above: as long as the company produces some purely military products, it can also produce civilian products. Other than small or very specialized component shops, virtually no company is pure military.

As far as Boeing, forget mergers. Remember the B-17; Germany did. Remember the B-29; Japan did. Remember the B-47; the USSR did. Remember the B-52 and KC-135; the noisy beasts are still flying. It worries me when the third generation of a family has flown the same general combat aircraft type. When I last looked, the B-52 is planned to stay operational until at least 2030; pretty good for a first flight in the early fifties. Anyone want to think a few might hit the century mark?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I believe Wandalstouring means if it produces some products that are purely military in nature, even if if it produces non-military product as well, that's in scope. I'd go with that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To take the argument possibly to an extreme -what about componies that were only involved in producing military products during wartime - such as the Austin Motor Company, which while more widely known for production of cars etc, did make large amopunts of military goods during WW1 and 2?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To add my AU$0.02 in answer to Nigel Ish, that is an extreme case. There are two places that I see where a line could easily be drawn. (1) companies that are known/ have a reputation for producing military products, or (2) companies that willingly produce military products. An easy way to make the call would be to see if there was a significant coverage of their military production in the company's main article. Either criteria would of course allow some swing either way, but companies that were required or forced to produce military materiel because of major conflict should not fall under the project scope. To go all the way up to the examples in Jim Sweeney's comment at the start of the discussion: Boeing would fall under the project, Ford wouldn't. -- saberwyn 12:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems we have reached an agreement all arms manufactures who are known for there production of military equipment are included in the project Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ammunition Technical Officer

Can someone have a look at the article Ammunition Technical Officer - A couple of editors appear to have added a large chunk of text referring to individual Pakistani Army officers and operations in Liberia to what was previously an article about the British Ary position.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Has already been reverted. Please advise the overenthusiastic editor how to create an article on his rather different topic. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Image of the U.S. Air Force Good Conduct Medal used in a Wikipedia award

Recently I discovered an image of the U.S. Air Force Good Conduct Medal used in a custom Wikipedia award on the page User:BetacommandBot. I don't think it is an appropriate use of the image, and it may even be against U.S. law. Please see the conversation on the issue at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Image:Air_Force_Good_Conduct_Medal_ribbon.png. I would like other people's opinion on whether I am off base or not in thinking it should be removed. Thank you. --Pesco (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is no longer on the page. Honestly, I don't think it's an issue. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is back on the page. The previous discussion has ended, and I've opened up a "Request for Comment" at the talk:Image use policy page. Thanks! --Pesco (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hoff Moor?

I just came across the article Battle of Hoff Moor, and it reads like a hoax. A massive battle over three pigs? The only google hits for "Battle of Hoff Moor" are two Wikipedia articles (Battle of Hoff Moor and Hoff, Cumbria) and a Wikipedia mirror. There appears to have been a Battle of Hoff in Napoleonic times, but I haven't been able to find any source for a battle of Hoff Moor. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Checked myself and it looks very much like a hoax to me, I would suggest prodding, or asking the author where the sources are or where they can be found, if there are no sources go straight to prodding it. Dreamafter (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have prodded it, and alerted the author. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is not a hoax (sounds hoaxy to me), without goof references we cannot know its notability, which seems very low anyway. Arnoutf (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Brevity now open

The peer review for Operation Brevity is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine) now open

The peer review for Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Star fort

I tagged Star fort for WPMILHIST. Sv1xv (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Roman-Persian Wars now open

The peer review for Roman-Persian Wars is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Verrières Ridge now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Verrières Ridge is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Montana class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Montana class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation naming (cont.)

This is a continuation from the previously unfinished discussion here [1]

Essentially the demand to bring this up again in a wider forum was requested in Talk:Prague Offensive which I wanted to rename the Prague Offensive Strategic Operation (there are several articles that require renaming).

With a large number of proposed articles in the Eastern Front (World War II) planned, I have adopted a scheme for the operations initiated by the Red Army that essentially follows that of the Imperial Russian, Soviet and Russian military historians which specifies

the dominant objective of the operation (usually a major political division, city area, or a geographic reference such as a river or a mountain range)

the scope of operation (large (strategic), medium (operational) and small (tactical))

the type of operation (degrees of activity or passivity)

and finally the noun itself - operation, replacing the overused "battle of", but not battle for.

For the Axis forces, where no operation name exist (there are operational code names), I have adopted the same scheme in consultation with a noted authority on the subject David Glantz, except that necessarily the type of the operation will usually be opposite to Soviet (see further), and named for the major objective which may have been different to that of the Soviet operation.

The hierarchy of operations is clearly and consistently set out for the reader based on scope as follows:

• Place-name type Strategic operation (Front or group of Fronts)
  • Place-name type Operation (Operational) (part of Front or group of Armies)
    • Place-name type battle or alt. battle for (Army or smaller forces, several Corps) (not "Battle of" if I can help it)
      • Place-name type Engagement (Division or smaller tactical combat) (not used yet)

In general this is the naming convention followed in the Soviet and German sources, though the enterprising English editors of the past had converted all German names to "Battle of" (abandoned by Jane's Information Group in the 1970s)

The type is qualified by existing Wikpedia articles which can be expanded as a result of creating new articles by using them as examples, i.e.:

• Air superiority
• Blockade
• Breakout (military)
• Breakthrough (military)
• Counterattack
• Deep operations
• Encirclement
• Flanking maneuver
• Offensive (military)
• Penetration (warfare)
• Pincer
• Pitched battle
• Raid (military)
• Siege
• Surrender (military)
• Withdrawal (military)
• Interdiction
• Raid (military)

These mostly apply to the smaller operational and tactical titles and are so used in Soviet and German sources.

The noun "operation" is needed for grammatical reasons as much as to clarify that the event was intended and may not have involved combat (as every Offensive must) and since use of Defensive as a noun is unusual. A number of types of operations above can be unintended, such as Breakthrough, Counterattack, Raid, or a Withdrawal, all of which can happen with little or no planning and can not be named operations (again so used in Soviet and German sources). In some cases "battle" is absolutely inapplicable, such as the Kuban Air superiority operation which ranged for months over large areas of battlefront airspace.

Some have suggested that the type of the operation, e.g. Offensive or Defensive, should be used as a noun, and no scope need be indicated. However, the suggestion seems ahistorical. Blitzkrieg depended on strategic pincer operations, and to call one the Minsk Pincer means absolutely nothing! After all, the title needs to be able to identify a discrete article subject.

Others have also suggested that there is a guideline which asks to use the most common name. However, what this also ask me to do is to falsify the actual historical name with the name adopted by some brainless book editor in the 50s and 60s who had no clue as to what the actual name of the operation was. It is also counter-productive in that the titles adopted for books try to capture the entire content of the book where as in a reference work what we are looking for are the equivalent of chapter names! It is nonsensical to use for an article title a "common name" that has been used to cover thousands of pages of text, and limiting the Wikipedia editors to 100Kb ;o)

It is unfortunate that in my case most of the articles need to assume the titles of operations created by the Russian General Staff who did not have the English speakers in mind. However, the ultimate argument rests on the English speaking reader's ability to comprehend

Prague Strategic Offensive Operation

vs

Prague Offensive

I have faith in the ability of the mythical "average reader" to master the title if he or she has chosen to delve into the subject of the Eastern Front where neither Kharkov nor Bobruysk, or Konigsberg roll off the tongue by comparison.

The suggestion that somehow the wrong common name is more correct then the correct historical name seems quite absurd to me. If in the case of Prague it is less absurd, in the case of articles like Battle of Kursk it is more so, since the article does not refer to either of the two battles of Kursk, or even fighting anywhere near Kursk! It is so titled because on the wartime newspaper maps Soviets simply called it the Kursk Bulge, with the appropriate bow-like line drawn with the Kursk in the middle. In fact the "battle" encompassed no less then six separate German and Soviet ground, and two air operations!

So, the question is - is Wikipedia about providing a quality reference source of information, or about repeating old absurdities? I am not suggesting OR here because the names of these operations are widely used in sources, including more recent, but obviously less numerous English sources because the "battle of Kursk" had been repeated many times in 50 years before someone had learned to read Russian.

What rule am I breaking by using the correct event name? I have had consensus and "Ownership of articles" thrown at me on top of the ubiquitous naming conventions. Consensus can only be reached where the discussion is not based on established facts! For example it is not possible to establish by consensus the name of The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America because that is the full name of the document regardless of how many times it had been misnamed United States Declaration of Independence. However, where as this was a known document with a title which eventually came to include more then the original 13 states, it is reasonable to arrive at this name by consensus. The names of the Soviet wartime operations were not known for some time, until the 1960s. They had not changed from the time of their execution. How can I be accused of article ownership if the title is a fact of history which I am simply trying to get right. I am not pushing my own point of view, but simply refusing to use what is a misinformed and misused term/s, surely something expected in a reference work.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip Shearer, Skinny87, AskariMark, and myself have tried over and over to impress upon Mrg that this approach is over-complicated, does not suit English phrasing, and needs a good deal more knowledge than the average person simply looking for details of Eastern Front battles may have; as AskariMark said, we have little on the operational level of war or any of the other concepts required to put these titles in the proper context.

Attempts to offer the previous consensus, Prague Offensive or other X Offensive, which retains some of the Russian original flavour while sounding readible in English, have most lately be met with personal attacks. Having looked at the Ru-wiki, it appears that most of their articles retain a short form similiar to ours: Budapest Operation, Belorussian Operation, etc, rather than the long official form which Mrg is advocating. The full discussion can be found at Talk:Prague Offensive. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

over-complicated - How is a consistent and understandable approach I use more complicated then trying to reconcile a diversity of names given to various events derived from book titles over past 60 years?

does not suit English phrasing - actually a two-word phrase is far lees understandable then a four-word one

needs a good deal more knowledge than the average person may have - I appreciate your desire to stand up for the "average guy" Buckshot06, but who is that? Have you conducted some online survey to determine "average" intelligence of people accessing "Eastern Front battles"? In the initial reading of the title, the "average guy" only need to understand four words, three of which are in English. The operational level of war is not mentioned in the titles, and left as "Operation", the significance of the difference between operational and strategic being explained in the article content with appropriate link. Operation is used as a noun.

previous consensus, Prague Offensive - there is no consensus because there was no source provided for the name. What the lot of you have done, is to refuse to accept that the use of Prague Offensive in the article that deals with its strategic execution will create problems with naming of article that really do deal with the operations of troops taking offensive action directly towards, and in Prague. This is the same case for all such operations. As it happens the Prague Strategic operation's four operational level offensives are not named solely Prague, but Dresden-Prague Offensive Operation, and the article for the taking of Prague would be the Battle for Prague, but that is besides the point.

There is a hierarchical relationship between levels of execution in military operations. If any "average" reader wants to find out about the Eastern Front, then they would need to get a concept of the scope of any given event without the necessity of refereeing to David Glantz explanation of how 1941 Barbarossa was an advance from the Atlantic coast to Springfield, Illinois. "Offensive" was, and is deemed insufficient to describe all events just as "battle" is not either.

I will be in contact with ru-Wiki in regards to their use of literary rather then historical names. Wikipedia is a reference and not a literary work. This is often forgotten.

It is not only a work frequently used as a source

but also

Significance in a specified context--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The basic rule is that the title of Wikipedia articles should be whatever the most common English-language name for that thing/event is. As such, the scope and need for new naming conventions for things like battles is pretty small as editors should select the title of the article from the most common name in their reference material. For instance, Battle of Kursk is the correct name as this is by far the most common English-language name for this battle (and, incidently, is the title David Glantz used for his book on the subject). Naming conventions are only needed when different things have the same name in my view (for instance, General Brudenell White and Australian landing ship medium Brudenell White (AV 1354)). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

break1

Ah, well Nick, but have you read the book? Its a large book. Much larger then the article in Wikipedia. It comes with chapters. Nay, its in four parts, with eight chapters including a conclusion, and six appendixes. Each chapter is broken up into 4-8 sub-chapters. He also wrote another book on the subject where the Battle for Kursk, is that of the Kursk Bridgehead. Not that I'm advocating renaming the article from Battle of Kursk to Battle of the Kursk Bridgehead. In fact it should be called Operation Citadel because that is what the Germans called it, and it was their Offensive.

However, you have not added anything to what I had not already known. I know the naming policy, however, policy is expected to be applied with common sense, and that is expected to prevail in every case, and not become a rubber stamp. So, what I object to is using names that were chosen without any consideration for their historical relevance, which are inappropriate for a reference work because they were used for book titles, inconsistent, and which were used at the time when the actual names of the operations were not known to the authors. Common sense suggests that a good reference work would provide the reader with the most complete and updated information on the subject, and not repeat ad-nauseum old information. That is why the 1911 version of Britannica is available free of charge online these days ;o)

Now, the problem with "most common name" usage is that old, incorrect names are likely to be the most common because they are old, and have been repeated more in print then the new correct names. In actual fact since the 60s the publishing policy has been for editors, not authors, to use vaguely distinct book titles to create product differentiation. The truth is that nothing written in English is likely to have a "common name" if published in the last 40-50 years! David Glantz can afford to title his book Battle of Kursk because he is David Glantz.

The clarity in the rest of the operations is far from lacking. The Kharkov battles were so confused that I had to completely rewrite one intro, and rename them, with Buckshot06 objecting as usual though the offer to discuss was there for weeks without a response. Some Soviet strategic operations don't have books published on them at all in English, so get no coverage in Wikipedia. Most of the smaller operations, I'm talking Front (Soviet Army) here, so about the size of the entire British-Commonwealth forces in North Africa, don't have any English literature.

What I am looking for is a consistent approach to titles across a project that will include hundreds of articles. I would like to arrive at this consistency now, rather then to have to "fight battles" over a period of two years.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I own the book and have read it, and imagine that the title was chosen because it's the common name rather than Glantz throwing his weight around - if people don't know what the book's about as it has an obsure title they're not going to buy it. While I also have some issues with Wikipedia's naming policy (eg, the country whose official English name is Timor Leste being called East Timor) it's on the whole a good policy and generating your own titles because you don't like the common English-language name is basically original research. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we need to use the common English-language names for things. If the Russian-language or German-language name is something else then that's basically irrelevant here. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I'd support mrg's argument in that there are hardly any 'common names' in English for most of these actions beyong Stalingrad, Kursk, Berlin, and one or two others. The majority have either 1) not been differentiated or 2) have been briefly referred to in translated German memoirs. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A minor comment here but if these are not official names but constructs to describe the activities then only proper names would take capitals, so it would be "Prague offensive strategic operation". Have you considered the naval approach as in "action of date"?GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood you Graeme, so just to clarify:

• there are official and unofficial (literary) names for all Soviet operations
• there are code-named names for some German operations, the rest being known for Orders Report names in the Unit, Date, Place format that had been abbreviated to the Place-only use in English literary use.

I have considered the naval approach as in "action of date", and will use this for the German operations where they are named as the Soviet operations. So if the Soviet operation is (example) Bobluysk offensive operation, the German would be 1943 Bobluysk offensive operation. However, there were very few such occasions. Usually the German operation would be a Bobluysk counteroffensive operation, or a Soviet one, such as the two counteroffensives to Operation Citadel. In fact there are many useful words in English that can, and were used to distinguish operations. The Courland forces evacuation was a German naval operation that can also, I guess, be named Naval battle of Courland by the less imaginative. There was the German 17th Army withdrawal from Crimea as part of the Crimea Camapign (World War II), named Battle of the Crimea (1944) in Wikipedia despite it being so named in the Army Group orders, but is not so known in German memoirs (I wonder why), etc. The lack of consistent approach means that the earlier part of the campaign for which the Crimea Shield was awarded is not in Wikipedia, and is not even listed as part of the campaigns for the 17th Army! In stead its covered by the Siege of Sevastopol (1941-1942) (renamed by me from the ubiquitous "Battle of" which is not the same as the vicious two year campaign. The price of rigid adherence to Wikipedia policy rather then a strict adherence to best practice in history research.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

{<<--} in principle I think that the guideline is correct in pointing out that operational names make bad names, in the case of code names because they are not descriptive, and in the case of operational names because as they are not a neutral name there is a built in bias towards the side from which the name comes. In the case of recent US names there is also a propaganda aspect to operational names (Operation Just Cause) but on the day the US Army proposed the name "Operation Thanksgiving Massacre" for what became "Operation Phantom Fury", and which we name Second Battle of Fallujah, PSYOPS were out for lunch![2])

Some times, unfortunately as in the case of Operation Goodwood and sometimes fortunately, as in the Battle of Bulge we are bound by common names. The path that mrg3105 seems to be leading us down would for example rename many of the articles in the Invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) or would it become Baghdad Strategic Offensive Operation? Both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Baghdad Offensive Strategic Operation would encourage an more Coalition centric view than we currently have. After the Battle of Kursk as the initiative on the Eastern Front passed more and more firmly to the Soviets and (as earlier in the war on the Eastern Front), for many of the events there is little written about them in English, I see no harm in naming the article as for example the Prague Offensive. But I do not think it is a good idea to name the articles after the full Soviet operational names for the reasons stated in the guideline the compromise of using the geographic name and offensive is enough unless there is a common English name for the events that occur because of the operation, although in the case where an offensive causes a specific battle or siege, as in the case of Siege of Breslau I still think descriptive names are better -- unless there some other common name in English -- than using the name of the Soviet Operation that took the city. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat taken aback by your argument Philip. I must say that my respect for you has taken somewhat of a bruising.

Firstly I had never suggested adoption of the Soviet way of naming operations throughout the Military History Project as a whole, so I do not appreciate being "painted red" based on the hypothetical examples I had given elsewhere.

Secondly, it seems to me you are simply showing bias in denying that the Red Army had a large number of operations that were strategic in nature and scope as compared to the Western Allies of the Soviet Union. You are in fact forcing the Soviet, and Russian historical record to comply to what? Made upp names by English editors based on German memoirs? Wikipedia policy? Your own bias? All sorts of adaptations have been made in Wikipedia to accommodate far more contentious article naming, but here there is seemingly an impasse because I suggest using the actual names of the operations as their users knew them. Consider this, the operational plans are a form of record, and records are archival literature, and archival literature are a form of reference also, just like any completely unreferenced German memoirs of the mid-1950s. So, I am asking to adopt the name on the cover of the original source for the subject rather then the very Original Research one by other, highly biased sources. Advocating continued use of these sources really, if unwittingly, places you as a supporter of "bad history" that I know you are not! I can only urge you to consider the neutrality of your position, and reconsider your opposition to my proposal.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to consider edits like this one Why is the battle "CLEARLY about the strategic operation and not just the battle for the city)" you are pushing against an open door. But the edit that accompanied that comment was removing the battle of Berlin from category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II and including it in category:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II. Why did you not leave it in the category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II and just include it in the new Strategic operations category?

My example about the Baghdad Offensive Strategic Operation is not as silly as it seems given what you wrote in the section Talk:Hundred Days#100 Days and the Waterloo Campaign again and Prague Offensive#RFC: renaming Prague Offensive to Strategic Offensive Operation about the Waterloo campaign as I presume they were hypothetical examples as was the Baghdad Offensive Strategic Operation it was to make the point that such a name encourages a one sided view of a battle/campaign as is made clear in the guideline. It was not my intention to "painted red" but to show those who are perhaps not a familiar with "old battle fought long ago on a distant field by people we know little about" as they are with a heavily televised current war, the potential bias that creeps into articles that use names assigned by one side in a war. We can not avoid it in wars that involve English speaking people (because of common usage trumping NPOV) but we can for many wars between non English speaking people. It is not just the name of the articles but the us of those names in other articles and operational names are not the best to use when there are other naming possibilities available. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

break2

I'll leave the hypotheticals out of it for now.

You will note that the "Battle of Berlin" article is written BACKWARDS, which is why I had changed it to strategic operations. It actually needs to be split! The earlier parts 4 and 5 that talk about the combat for and in Belrin, need to become "Battle for Berlin", and the later parts that discuss the operations to encircle the city, all begun on 16 April before fighting in Berlin started, yes those "Battle south of Berlin" and "Battle north of Berlin" and the one that actually completed the encirclement which you have deleted, need to become articles in their own right. Now, the funny thing is that you changed the name of the Seelow-Berlin Offensive Operation back to "Battle of the Seelow Heights". You know I suppose, that it lasted two weeks? You know that Seelow Heights was but a part of the operation, albeit one that was significant in the German account? So, how about a neutral approach where the operation is told from start to finish, and not just the "heroic" four days covered by the current article? You are the one who talks about "potential bias that creeps into articles", but here the creep is rather obvious, and yet you have said nothing about that.

It is not a bias in naming events "that use names assigned by one side in a war"! If the operation was a Soviet one, then why should it be named something else? If I write a book titled "History of Sydney", will it need to be renamed "History of one of Australia's largest cities" so the other state capitals don't get upset?! The Soviet operations were appropriately named with extreme prejudice! It was war Philip. As I said, if the English and American histories of not include any offensives during the Second World War, then there is not much I can do about that, but I am not concerned with the West European Theatre. The war in the East was conducted with extreme "bias".

In any case, do you seriously suggest that the "Battle of Berlin", when first named in 1945, was so named to avoid bias against Germans?!!! Please do not embarrass yourself in this display of political correctness. It was used because it was a BIG LOUD NAME that the public wanted, and journalists delivered. It fit in neatly with Battle of Britain; you know the German strategic air operation Adlerangriff to bomb UK into submission? I see that its pityfull stub is being merged into "Battle of Britain" so it can get a more "neutral" treatment there, right?

In any case, what is needed now is to assess, and put into order what articles and content are in Wikipedia within the scope of Eastern Front. Much of it is fairly low quality. You are helping in keeping it that way. Thanks--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an inappropriate thing to say Mrg. We are all trying to improve WP, though we may disagree about exactly how the final result should look (and for heaven's sake, we're discussing titles, you think Philip is going around ruining the text?). Really, the problem from my perspective is this: that these big 'X Strategic Offensive (or Defensive) Operation's are truly convoluted English. The smaller ops, Memel Offensive Operation, which are less known, I'm not so worried about. But when we get a Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation or Prague Strategic Offensive Operation, four to five word titles when Prague Offensive or Berlin Offensive etc is in common use, it seems ridiculous to impose these convoluted official titles on things when there is a simpler, in-use, term available. We are not trying to impose 'Berlin Campaign' or 'Dnieper Campaign' which would probably be the best English description of what went on, so we're prepared to compromise, please meet us half-way and consider not 'X Strategic Offensive Operation' but 'X Offensive'. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with improving WP! You are trying to "improve" Soviet/Russian history because you are not seemingly satisfied with improving my English usage. Is your problem now with the Dnieper river being too long? One has to get the general area of the "battle" within a reasonable few hundred kilometres, I think. I mean, how would you feel if I said you live on one of the South Pacific islands? What !@#$%^& compromise?! There were no 'Berlin Campaign' or 'Dnieper Campaign'. Do you even have a concept of what a "campaign" is? In this case the campaign was Campaign in Europe 1945 (1 January - 9 May). It included several strategic operations. Philip removed the several of these "smaller ops", therefore obliterating the ability of the reader to know these ever existed! I.e removed any reference to them. Do you think this qualifies for "ruining the text" in a reference work? And who gave you the right and licence to say what the names of the operations should be just because you have a problem with longer-then-two word titles? You really must get to the National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa more often.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Calm down Mrg. I repeat, neither Philip nor I are trying to damage the encyclopaedia (nor were AskariMark or Skinny87, who you've managed to insult too). You don't have exclusive ownership over the articles, and even if mentions were removed it was probably ignorance rather than malice. Me in a South Pacific island? Technically, that's correct. Campaigns? Let us define our terms, no not according strictly to the Soviet General Staff interpretation laid down 30 years ago, but the general English understanding: I'll quote you: Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1973: 'A continuous series of military operations, constituting the whole, or a distinct part of, a war.' That's my understanding of a campaign, and if you think different, I suggest you consider writing Campaign (Soviet military) - then we can benefit from that interpretation of it. The right and licence? I'm working from accepted English usage, rather than trying to inappropriately fit Soviet formalism into a language that does things in a simpler fashion. I'll ignore your insulting comment about visiting libraries. (Actually, on a side note, next door to the National Library is Defence House and the Defence Library - much better for that sort of thing). Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to explain why I removed them here but I think that is better done on the talk page of the appropriate article -- The comment comment in the history of the article covers it, (even though I should have written red and not read!)[3] But one of the reverts I made is I think relevant. mrg3105 you changed the

:::::::The Battle of the Seelow Heights was one of the last pitched battles of World War II.

to

:::::::The Seelow-Berlin Offensive Operation was one of the last pitched battles of World War II.

I don't think this is an improvement for all the reasons we have discussed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

break3

I intended to insult since I find people writing on subjects they are unfamiliar with fairly insulting in a public domain...to my intelligence, and to expectations of the readers.

Well, as a helpful aide to a civilised discussion, STOP INSULTING PEOPLE PLEASE; me or anyone else! We wish to have a discussion, which is not helped by insults in any direction. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to read references to Wikipedia articles in forms; the reason I started writing here. Sorry, I don't accept the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1973 definition of campaigns (the title has too many words!), or this dictionary, but when you visit the Defence

I'm sorry, I find this hard to understand. You're contesting an Oxford dictionary definition raised by a native English speaker, when you, by your own admission, are working in a second language? Can you at least not admit the possibility that Philip and I may have some greater experience of the way English flows, and thus have some justification for our points? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Library, do some research and expand the article, and then I won't need to define one in Soviet military use since its the same for all militaries as you will find, and has been for centuries.

I fail to understand what "accepted English usage" has to do with names of events in other languages. There are archival documents that are so named. They were not named with "accepted English usage" in mind, but that is true for many documents and many events. You can not simplify a historical name, which is a fact, because you, or someone you think is the "average reader", are having a problem getting their mind around the title of the article! The titles are far more

We are creating the English version of Wikipedia. We are trying to agree on the best basis for naming an article accessible to general readers. We are not bound to translate exactly the Russian term if there is a more appropriate English one available, especially one, as AskariMark said, that may be confusing to people looking at the articles with little specialist knowledge. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

descriptive also. It has nothing to do with being either Soviet or "formulaic", something applicable to any use of language with a grammar structure. I have patiently explained the reason for every word. I have also patiently explained how the "common usage" names came to be. I have also explained that this, Wikipedia, is not a literary work, but a work of reference. Where as an author writing on smoking may name the book "Don't blow smoke in my face", in Wikipedia this title can invite a wide variety of articles from idiom, to sarcasm, to the chemical definition of smoke, and the explanation of its dynamics in terms of physics of pressure in gasses. This, is the point of having a reference work! People are expected to find all and complete descriptions of any given subject, and if the means of delivering smoke requires use of personal use filtered tobacco burning implement (non-inhaling), then so be it even if most people will call commonly it a cigarette, failing to distinguish it from other Category:tobacco burning implements. The editors or a reference work have a higher then average standard. It seems to be an unwritten assumption, but maybe it needs to be made explicit. I see your arguments as a means of reducing this standard to a far lower common denominator. Given that surveys of individuals interested in military history have suggested a higher-then-average intelligence quotient, I see no problem in presenting even the more complex concepts in military history, art and science.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

break4

You need to calm down, mrg3105. Your personal attacks are growing ever more extreme. I'd like to request this get taken to an arbitration commitee, as it's obvious no consensus will be reached. Skinny87 (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I' afraid you may be disappointed. The arbitration committee has no authority in renaming historical events, unlike journalists and book editors--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that per WP:CON that we remain with the naming convention system we have at the moment, as the consensus is clearly on the side of remaining with that system. Skinny87 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Since plans are afoot to take this off the project community general discussion so I can be dealt with elsewhere for "rocking the boat" (in newspeak "being disruptive"), I have posted my final reply on the matter on my own talk page. Skinny87, please do not misunderstand, or take it as insult when I say to you that it seems to me you have not read either the naming conventions, or the reason for which they were created in the first place. The most important thing to remember in any business, including Wikipedia editing, is not the business, but the customer. If the interpretation of Wikipedia naming conventions (as suggested above) was followed in general English speaking society, it would have the same status and development in the World today as North Korea. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC) I don't ask for support, however, when I find that recommendations in education institutions are made expressly against use of Wikipedia as a reference work I edit, it makes me shudder at the waste of time by thousands who contribute to it under the false belief that they are providing something for the "general reader", the argument editors who try to introduce some quality into the process are continuously "beaten over their heads" with!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why can't redirects be used to allow for a consistant naming without changing the actual titles? Isn't the whole point to make it easier for readers to find the articles they are looking for? Being forced to use a controversial name for a battle or operation just because it is the name of the main article just dumps the whole internal linkability feature into the trash. How hard would it be to add a section it the main articles that list the alternate names? --Colputt (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

break5

While I support and commend mrg3105’s desire to develop a better way to title articles on military conflicts than to call everything a “Battle” – and have agreed that the Soviets have a better system (in the sense of being more structured, precise and rational) than the haphazard usage in the West, I am still waiting to see him offer evidence of any scholarly consensus – beyond himself and Mr. Glantz, that is – of a broad and preferential usage among modern English-language historiographers for naming WWII contests of arms according to Soviet usage. Lacking that, he lacks any justification for imposing it upon Wikipedia. Where mrg3105 and I part ways – aside from his penchant for ad hominem attacks on anyone who declines to march arm-in-arm with him and the Great Soviet Encyclopedia as the sole possible form of serious debate – is that I believe in enabling general readers in finding articles on subjects of interest to them, where they can learn more about the subject, including the Soviet perspective that should naturally be an integral part of such articles and to which mrg3105 has commendably and diligently worked to add to them. Mrg3105, who openly and curiously scoffs that readers of any sort exist beyond experts in Soviet historiography, appears to believe that in his Wikipedia these articles should be rigorously hidden from discovery by any but that handful of experts who already know enough about the subject to not need to bother reading general encyclopedia articles since they have at hand – and in their heads – the works of astute professionals like Glantz, Erickson, and others.

As someone who was already working with the likes of John Erickson, Harriet Fast Scott and her husband Bill, along with a handful of others who were promoting a more accurate understanding of Soviet military history, art and science – and familiar with even the earliest writings of Glantz – at a time when mrg3105 was still seriously playing with marbles, I can safely assert that there is less need for me to “read history” than there is for him to learn the basics of civility, both scholarly and otherwise. Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People would be a good place to start reading.

I find it easy to work both with professional scholars who are subject matter experts and eager amateurs on the same subject; unfortunately, I find mrg3105 to be neither, but rather only a smart troll. My experience with trolls is that the best way to deal with them is not to feed them. Accordingly, I’m going to recuse myself from further butting heads with someone who is too knowledgeable about subject matter that is, in the great scheme of things, only trivial, and too unknowledgeable in such subject matter that is truly important – how you treat other human beings. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see it a large part of the dicussion is whether Soviet offensives should be named using the Soviet nomenclature when there is no other common English usage. As the vast majority of these actions have no commonly-used English name (other than the handful that I've mentioned elsewhere in these comments), it seems correct that a translation of the Soviet terminology should be used. It certainly seems ludicrous that articles should be misleadingly named "Battle of..." when a) this completely misrepresents the article's contents, and b) there is no precedent for using such a name (see Battle of Memel). Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Esdrasbarnevelt, I can't speak for Philip Shearer or AskariMark, but my principal concern is not the minor operations, but the big, complex, convoluted titles for the major operations. Looking through Mrg3105's list of Soviet operations is going to be a bit tiring for the newbie anyway, without having Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation or such like at every turn. What I would like to propose is nominating a list of the Strategic Offensive Operations to be simply turned into 'Offensive', as per Prague and Berlin, and, apparently, the Russian wikipedia itself (which mostly uses 'operation' rather than 'strategic offensive operation'. I have no difficulty with Memel Offensive Operation and I take your comment about Battle of Memel being actually a wiki-ism (like the old 'Battle of Romania' title we had for a while). Appreciate your thoughts on a half-way compromise here. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, a think it would be a good idea to have some kind of list identifying which operations actually have common English names for starters (e.g. Battle of Stalingrad, which really covers several German and Soviet offensive and defensive actions, or the Battle of Kursk, which covers Operation Citadel and in some accounts additional Soviet counter-offensives, all of which should in any case be made clear in the lead of each article). We then need to come to a consensus on what to call the rest of them. My own instinct is to suggest that 'strategic' has to be in there in some form in order to differentiate between these major, strategic-level operations and the individual operations that make them up. Although in principle I'd favour the full Soviet title where there's no common English one, I'd suggest perhaps we could use something along the lines of, for example, East Pomeranian Strategic Offensive (rather than East Pomeranian Offensive or East Pomeranian Strategic Offensive Operation), if perhaps everyone could agree on that - my main concern would be to arrive at a framework that Mrg3105, yourself and everyone else who has put serious work in on content could work within. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the lines you propose for compromise are workable, but in terms of including everybody who's worked on it, like AskariMark I'm reaching the point of being totally fed up with Mrg3105's conduct, despite having worked closely with him for some time. The latest dispute he's decided to create is ignoring -WP:UE and proudly denouncing WP:OWN on the Infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957, and since I created that page and its predecessor, it's one I've been keeping an eye on, and do not want him ignoring guidelines on. I would like to work toward a consensus, but I do not think Mrg would be willing to budge from what is written in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Thus I can only think of revisiting this at a later period. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What surprises me most about this discussion is that I have not seen either AskariMark or Buckshot actually contributing in any meaningful way to the creation or editing of articles on the Eastern Front, and yet speaking as if they are sole determinants of what and how should be done. I also find it amazing that Buckshot keeps referring to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, while I have never used it as a source of reference, and have consistently used names for operations supplied by Craig Crofoot, as complied by David Glantz, who has had his books reviewed by John Erickson before his passing, i.e all fairly competent English speakers.

I think the proposal by Esdrasbarnevelt is a sensible one. As you may have noticed, I am not a freak who wants to rename Battle of Berlin, Battle of Kursk or Battle of Stalingrad. These articles can not possibly cover all the operations they encompass, but can be extremely valuable as overall introductions and summations to the less well known sub-operations, and useful in article size management. The issue of use English is a thorny one, and ultimately it is difficult to use English in areas where English is not the language of writing history.I would not like to revise this at a later period, and woudl hope that a consensus can be reached as soon as possible.

Just to humour you Buckshot, what would you call the Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation? Keep in mind this is the name used in all relevant books by Glantz which currently represent the bulk of English language material on the operation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(od)I think my saying two paragraphs above is the first time I've ever referred to the GSE - following on from AskariMark. I would argue that my longtime effort to try and improve Red Army falls within the Eastern Front area, and my creation of 7th Army (Soviet Union), 9th Army (Soviet Union), 10th Army (Soviet Union), raising of 12th Army (Soviet Union) from a stub, creation of 13th Army (Soviet Union), 22nd, 29th, 33rd, 35th, 51st (to A-class), 58th, and 11th Guards Army rather would count as 'contributing in a meaningful way,' not to mention the scores of division articles, additions of sections to battles, etc. Lower Dnieper? The Lower Dnieper Offensive; but we'd have to involve other people and seek other opinions. You and I can't settle this on our own. Buckshot06(prof) 03:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone needs to "justify" their efforts on an article or have an established number under their belt, otherwise no one would be able to contribute anything. I'm going to side with Buckshot and Skinny on this one. These "strategic operations of" are simply convoluted ways (that I've never come across asides from mrg3105's usage. It's needlessly complicated, breaks standards with every other article that we have, ignores common English naming, and violates neutrality by having has all operations named solely in regards to the Soviets, disregarding whatever the other combatant called it. Oberiko (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous statement. How can others have opinions on naming operations that were not their own? How can one be neutral about an offensive? How else can a strategic offensive and its components be distinguished from each other if they have same names? There are no standards in every other article because every other article is either named "Battle of" or "Operation", neither of which are particularly useful in a reference work. Most Soviet operations don't have English names. David Glantz informs me that about 40% of them have never been covered in English yet. In nay case, you completely ignore what I said at the very start of this proposal. I fully intend to have articles informing about offensives by other combatants as I go, and these will be named based on German, Romanian, Finish or whatever side. The fact is that most are actually not covered either. Worse, we already have the most obvious disregard for what other combatant called operations in the case of Operation Citadel which is referred to as Battle of Kursk.

As to Buckshot06 comments, writing unit articles is not like writing the operation articles they participated in. While your edits are appreciated, unfortunately they rarely if ever add to the substance of the article since your focus is on the orders of battle. I mean you write Lower Dnieper with a ? Dnieper is a huge river, and there were combat operations going on all along its length that year. Planning for operations commonly took at least a month, and better part of 3 months for a major strategic operation, so planning staff at Stavka and Fronts had to refer to front sectors in some way, and referring to the lower part of the river's course is fairly convenient. In fact, it is hardly new. In 1813-1814 there were operations all along the Lower and Upper Elbe, and neither the French, nor the Allies minded using this regional reference. Then there were the even more prominent operations in the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam War. They were collectively referred to as the Mekong Delta Riverine offensive operations by the USN and USA.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is WP:CON and mrg appears to have no support for what he is asking for, might I request that this be dropped, now? We would therefore remain with WP:COMMONNAME and other suitable policies for naming conventions. Skinny87 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A note regarding CIA-in-country articles

I am withdrawing from participation in these, as I do not believe the present structure, introduced by Ernxmedia, is one in which I feel I can work effectively. For those that think they can, more power to them.

There is something called style guide "rules". Please correct me, but I do not remember any discussions that formed a consensus about them being explicit rules. I remember them as a suggestion by Ernxmedia.

In like manner, I believe that putting every country in its own article is unwise. Ernxmedia raised the legitimate issue that certain countries' articles had grown too large for the regional articles. I agree that was true for certain countries, but not universally, and, as I thought, agreed to have links to country entries for complex entries such as Afghanistan, Laos, Iraq, and Vietnam. In the next day or so, I was surprised to see a branch, from the regional pages, to an article for every single country.

I am going to remove all, or most, country-specific entries from my watchlist; with my decreasing participation in Wikipedia, I can't possibly have the time to monitor them all, and the point that CIA is organized on regional lines apparently is lost.

An indirect effect of this is that people, whom I respect as contributors, are saying "there's very little content in CIA Activities in Country X; I'd like to move that content to a general article about some issue in US-Country X relations, or even to generic Country X issues." That has a certain logic, but it causes the CIA-specific material on the country to be lost as far as any reasonable retrieval schema.

It had been my understanding that the countries, for which there was little content, would stay at regional level. In that case, it would be easy to have wikilinks from the regional article to the non-CIA-specific article about the country, without an understandable temptation to get rid of what appeared to be a stub country article.

So, I give up on trying to do anything in the geographic organization. I may stay involved at the organizational and functional levels, or stay purely with country-agnostic intelligence, or just work elsewhere. Call it my problem, but I can't comfortably work in an environment of such anarchy. Bold-revert-discuss can work for an article, but not for 100 or so. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Berkowitz's assessment of this situation and would encourage Ernxmedia to consolidate most information 'up' to the regional entries. Buckshot06(prof) 05:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I removed 101 country articles from my watchlist, and feel refreshed for having done so. I've made my recommendation, as objectively as I can, about what can work and not work as far as article structure. If the structure came back to geographic/regional with branches when and if a country entry is too large, I think that would be good for WP, but I'm not sure I would put any personal work into it. I'm too tired of structural reversions, vandalism policing, the confusion of an intelligence organization history with a general foreign policy history, and related matters. I developed that structure at a time when it seemed helpful in replacing an overflow of conspiracy theory over substance, and providing a systematic means of putting analysis and collection alongside covert action.

My interests are far more focused on analytic tradecraft and technical collection, and a tactical level of special operations. While there are some specific countries of interest to me, such as Sudan, and logically their neighbors, I'm not sure I want the grief of dealing further with the country-level arguments.

Thank you, Buckshot. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06 and Howard,

A few notes:

1. Pulling out the per-country detail to per-country articles revealed that the regional articles are an expository shambles. Revealing this is a service, not a disservice. Regional articles should give coherent summaries of CIA activities in the region, as a region. These are by-and-large absent.
2. I added a style guide which consists uniquely and solely of Howard's breakdowns of what kind of activities an intelligence agency would functionally engage in. The fact that Howard cannot be pleased with his own categorization is unfortunate. The fact that Howard doesn't want to edit the style guide if he doesn't like it is unfortunate. The idea that there should be no style guide at all for a highly structured and focussed set of articles is illogical. What can you do?
3. Howard's latest retirement from the battlefield of CIA in Country X articles was initiated when an editor (someone entirely unknown to me) commented that the content of the CIA activities in Ethiopia article was, in no categorizable way, related to the CIA. It was related to US-Ethiopia Foreign Relations. So I put that content in Ethiopia–United States relations. This left the article empty, so I Googled for "CIA Ethiopia", found one highly correlated and recent news report, and added it to the article. This caused Howard to swallow his cigar and eat his hat, followed by an extremely pointed and emotional "Good day to you, sir!" to me.
4. The fact that an editor who is an expert on Ethopia foreign relations but not a priori interested in CIA Ethopia sees and comments on CIA Ethopia is a design feature. In creating the CIA activities in Country X articles, I took care to tag each article with "Foreign relations of X" and "Foreign relations of US". This draws in Foreign Relations experts for individual countries, and also allows us to channel out content which is Foreign Relations-centric from content which is CIA-centric. It is relevant to CIA if CIA has a specific, sourceable analysis of or opinion about a specific country, or if CIA takes an action which affects US-X foreign relations. Otherwise if it is about US-X, it should go in the US-X FR article. This is just logical.
5. If a region has 50 countries you can't really tag the regional article with "Foreign Relations of country X(i)" for i=1..50, it just doesn't help. As above, it does help, enormously, if you create an individual CIA in X article and tag that.
6. Each country is a country, quand meme, with it's own language, people, culture, etc., and it's own unique relationship with the US. So I don't think it's too much to ask that we have a per-country article, if we undertake to give detail at all, on CIA activities in country X. Every country, if we took the care to examine, would have at least a page of detail, and in general the most obscure countries often surprise with the greatest amount of activity to relate. E.g. what average person would think of Angola as being a huge focus of CIA activiity?
7. The regional articles were too large, covering 20 countries each on average. You just can't do that in 50KB or less and have anything like a historically meaningful amount of detail, given the density of CIA involvement over it's lifetime in global foreign affairs.

Everything about the above sequence of events leads me to believe that splitting out the CIA activities in Country X articles was the right decision.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You have your point of view. I have mine.

If you may remember, around last December, there was quite a feud when another editor decided to redirect away from all subarticles, and it took several weeks to get both to a consensus, with that editor taking a Wikibreak, and a set of more-or-less working subarticles. From that and other experiences, I came to the belief that bold-revert-delete may work well enough in individual articles, but does not scale with topics involving large numbers of subarticles.

At Wikipedia, as opposed to some other venues, there is no particular enforcement of structural or content changes. Now, my habit became, after observing experience, even if I was extracting a single article from the main CIA article or a major subpage, to have a comment on the article talk page for at least a week. Often, I had a copy of the proposed new article in my sandbox, to help people understand what I was proposing to do. No, I definitely and deliberately stopped making bold changes when it came to structure. After observing a good example of moving with careful consensus, Sri Lanka Reconciliation WP:SLR, I saw increasing value to having a real commitment to discussion and consensus on changes of greater than one article scope (e.g., agreement on sources and methods, how to handle POV issues, when to create subarticles). MILHIST did create an Intelligence Task Force that hasn't been very active, but, when I proposed changes to an article set, I tried to put a notice at least on the main MILHIST list. Coincidentally, there were some other proposals for taking material out of a CIA in country X article and moving it into another article. Since I really have no interest in country X, but am interested in the structural issues of national intelligence, I mentioned that the proposed move was absolutely reasonable if one simply wanted to focus on history of country X, or US-country X relations, but that material was not something I volunteered to work upon.

I cannot be responsible for what you decide to do. I can be responsible for a decision that I have seen enough problems with the country-by-country CIA approach that I am unwilling to spend any further time working within it. There are other topics of greater interest to me, where I may spend effort. The best of luck to you in having continuing improvement in the article-by-article approach, because I will not contribute reviews or materials to that structure; 101 country articles are gone from my watchlist.

If you get others to work with you in updating things in your structure, congratulations. I will not be one of them, not only because I do not believe country by country is viable, but we seem to have different interpretations of discussion and forming consensus before taking action. At this point, I am much more focused on things that interest me more, such as more technical aspects of intelligence. It's entirely possible, as I explore alternatives, that I will be happier contributing to in a more structured system than Wikipedia's.

Whether I am emotional or not, it is my choice whether to do any voluntary work. When under things that start out as discussion, and I soon find as a list of "rules" not presented to MILHIST or for a reasonable period of time on a main article list, I find more stylistic clash. There have been several occasions where you moved talk page discussion, in which you were not involved, into a main article; the people in the discussion presumably would have put the material in the article, not on the talk page, if they thought it was ready for the main article. Other things come to mind that suggest you and I have completely different ideas of collaboration and research -- not that one is right or wrong -- but I am not willing to work under yours.

I do not plan in further participation in discussion about the country by country approach. Whatever you argue about it, I have made a personal decision that I will not volunteer to spend time working on it. I am generally withdrawing from situations where I do not see serious attempts to find consensus before making structural changes, and I have other things in my life than being involved in POV wars.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's my place to jump in here, but has there been consideration for both solutions? I.e., could Howard continue to develop the regional articles while Erxnmedia does his thing on the sub-regional (and potentially stub) country level? Barring internal links and perhaps a template, it doesn't seem to me that there really needs to be much of an editing overlap.

As a personal example, I've been working on the World War II article, but have had relatively minor input in most of the related articles such as Pacific War, Soviet-German War etc. Oberiko (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd make the observation that the granularity of individual country articles probably doesn't reflect the way that Intelligence operations are conducted. I'd concur with Howard that regionalisation makes a lot more sense, as this is the way that the agency, and its peers in other nations, operates.

Where there is an excess of information it makes sense to have a subordinate article, but the real meat of operations is on a more regional basis, since it frequently involves more than one country. In many cases it would also involve multiple government bodies, and potentially other nations as well.

I would imagine that disaggregating down to the country level renders the article a simplistic list, with little scope to really consider the subtleties and relationships.

I'd also make the point that intelligence operations in any state don't happen independently either, Collections and consequential action has some broader purpose, either international relations, commercial or military, so realistically should probably be considered as a broader article around US government activities.

In terms of information architecture any single country article can then link to a range of others, including an agency regional one.

In the field of Int Ops there is rarely a one size fits all solution, since frequently there isn't even a one size fits all question.

ALR (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Seems like it'd be quite difficult to effectively place things such as CIA actions in Afghanistan which were directed against the Soviet Union, or collaborative efforts with other foreign intelligence agencies supporting/against a third party. Oberiko (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi ALR,

Howard (and anybody) may edit regional articles and country articles. This is Wikipedia: It goes without saying. I don't own anything that I've done on these subjects, I have merely contributed some time to establish a structure which is a particular house of cards that anyone may come in and rearrange at will.

I am not boss of anything and I am volunteering my own time in this regard. The style guide discussed above was prominently labelled in links to it as "Suggested".

While I agree that CIA is organized around regions, each country has a Country Officer, and the more reading I do in this field, the more I am convinced that

1. All politics is local
2. If you take the time, even the tiniest countries and involvements turn out to have deep history and deep localness.
3. The people on the ground on both sides of a conflict (hopefully on U.S. side occasionally) know a whole lot more about the local politics than generally gets printed.
4. You really lose the trees by only looking at the forest. This is a huge and frequent mistake in U.S. foreign policy. Iraq and Iran and Pakistan and Afghanistan each individually have how many ethnicities, how many regions, how many languages, who drew the borders, etc.?
5. Not understanding the local interests will get you burned at the regional level, even and especially if you consider yourself to be a regional player. It would be interesting to know how many CIA officers stationed in Arab countries actually speak Arabic fluently, or know the difference between Arabic and Farsi, Sunni and Shiite. (Or, stationed in Israel, can speak Hebrew and Yiddish fluently, and know the cultural differences between Sephardi and Ashkenazi.) E.g. U.S. policy in Afghanistan was for a long time dictated by interests of ISI in Pakistan. Similarly U.S. policy in Iran and Iraq can be dictated similarly by interests of Israel. Not knowing the region down to the country level well enough leaves us open to the manipulations of the people who actually live there who do. My interest in pursuing this topic to begin with is motivated by increasing the level of our (the society of English Wikipedia readers) understanding, at the country level, of impact and interaction of U.S. institutions such as CIA with the local politics of those countries. You can't do this looking through the wrong end of a telescope.

So IMHO, if you can't do a proper and authoritative job at the country level, there is no way that you will be able to back up to the regional level and say anything that makes sense.

Thanks,

Erxnmedia (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The real point of this discussion is that a number of people now question how workable your schema is. From the nature of your response then it's apparent that either I wasn't clear about how Int Ops would normally be viewed, or we have vastly different understandings of the nature and role of Int Ops.

In the context that you describe I'd dispute the suggestion that politics is local. The agency is acting as one element of the foreign policy of the US, it doesn't work in isolation and it's efforts are predicated around maintaining the relationship between the US and another state actor in the manner desired by the US government. I don't believe that you can present a credible coverage of that by concentrating only on part of what the agency does and treating the effort in isolation from the other bodies within the US government.ALR (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is key. as the CIA geographic articles are focused on talking about one agency and are not meant to cover overall foreign relations. There can be enough unexpected effects to warrant their own article, such as the combination of intelligence analysis and covert action vis-a-vis Indonesia in the fifties and sixties. To me, there are legitimate reasons to have articles about "U.S. foreign relations with country X". That isn't the purpose of this series of articles, which are specifically intended to be an intelligence & covert operations history. The closest things in this series should get to all aspects of foreign policy operations is when the other options are assessed, for example, in a National Intelligence Estimate. Even so, the focus there should be on the process of the intelligence estimate, which can certainly link to other overt action in the full sweep of foreign relations. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind I'd suggest that one needs to be clear about what the objectives of the articles are; is it merely recording the existence of dots or is it joining them up?

Having whatched what's gone on I rather sympathise with Howards frustrations, both in the general and the specific.

These are, of course, merely my observations and everyone is free to do what they will, whether to the benefit of the repository of information or its detriment.

ALR (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with keeping it regional until it WP:SUMMARY requires to be broken off? Surely I can see the case for individual articles on Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba etc., but I think it's going to be fragmented and very overlapping for most other nations. Oberiko (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only does that sound reasonable, it's also what I understood to be agreeing-to when asked about splitting off large articles. I was stunned when I found 101 countries split off. This is not the first time that I agreed to something and found the execution to be much more radical, which, for me, starts to create a problem of trusting someone in collaborative work.

I certainly think that would be the way to go. Consider that the regionalisation of the agency reflects the regionalisation of the State Department, then working in that framework should allow subordinate articles to be broken off where required. That allows them to be contextualised both in relation to the foreign policy and the relationship with other state actors within that region. Doesn't always work, if we consider the SIS actions during the recovery of the Falklands then efforts to disrupt the supply of exocets to Argentina took place in a number of places worldwide, that wouldn't really easily fit into regional constructs, but equally talking about it in articles about Argentina, France, Brussels etc wouldn't capture the Op either.

ALR (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

For me, the objective of the CIA-activities-in-country-X articles is to record activities of the CIA in Country X, by date and by type. The types of activities generally performed by an intelligence that have been identified so far are:

• Intelligence estimate
• Covert action
• Clandestine collection
• Counterintelligence
• Psychological operations

The objective is to give neutrally presented and neutrally categorized information about activities. The more detail the better. I would also like to see this done for other agencies in other countries such as Mossad and ISI, and have added this structure in those articles. I haven't branched those articles because there is much less information than for CIA.

I also think it is appropriate to summarize CIA's relationship with country X in the country X article. CIA does have a relationship which is part of US relationship with country X but is also distinct in some cases, i.e. the relationship established by CIA is not always same (generally different to be more exact) than relationship established by State Dept, and different from relationships established by congresssmen, President, and U.S. sponsored NGO's. Bureacracies have lives and individuals who establish relationships with other bureacracies, and these relationships have timing and lifespan which is not necessarily the same as timing and lifespan of relationships formed by people representing other parts of the Government.

The regional article should synthesize and present the regional picture, which is distinct from the country picture.

There was as of December 2007 a single massive CIA article which had a CIA-as-bad-guy flavor. Howard went to work vigorously on this article and we ended up seeing multiple branches. There are also literally hundreds of CIA-related articles, besides CIA-in-Country-X articles, that Howard disputes and which did not get merged but which are still out there under Category:Central Intelligence Agency.

In the case of the per-country data I think Howard went a little overboard in making CIA look like a branch of the Post Office and not as a force which could be used occasionally rather dumbly for ill. I personally, for example, have spoken with a senior and very much in-the-club CIA official who told me that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked, at President Johnson's insistence. So it's not always the straight arrow place that Howard very persistently paints it as.

So in order to set the record straight, my belief was that we simply needed a very straight and systematic record: By region, by country, by date, by activity type, by source. From which you can summarize and synthesize on top of that what you will, but at the base, you need to gather solid records on individual acts. This is where I see the CIA in Country X articles providing a service.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm afraid that nothing you've said has actually articulated the value of this. It strikes me that it's a bit of an over-reaction to your concerns and in itself probably reduces the information value of the portfolio.

The nature of IntOps do tend to be pretty uncomfortable, but one needs to avoid throwing the proverbial baby out.

ALR (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi ALR,

Not sure what you're getting at. You can still edit up the Regional articles while still allowing for Country X articles to give finer grained data specific to that country.

Also precedent has been established for data-only articles, for example Timeline of Afghanistan (July 2003).

Thanks,

Erxnmedia (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that you haven't really presented any justification other than because I can. I really think they lack any information value whatsoever, except in a small number of specific cases.

But as you say, anyone can pretty much do what they want in Wikipedia, regardless of the value or accuracy of the outcome.

ALR (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've presented my rationale. If it's all noise to you, then it's all noise. You are free to change the structure of the articles, add content, request deletion -- it's up to you. But we definitely disagree, that's clear. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall be dismissive, not having drunk the Kool-Aid, and not having confidence either in your structure or a willingness to work in consensus. I have nothing to prove or show here. As long as there is a country system and a regional system, they are far too easy to get out of synchronization, and I have no desire to contribute in your structure. Incidentally, I agreed with you on the understanding that there certainly could be links, from the regional level, to country-specific articles where there was more mterial than fit into a section of regional documents. There is a great deal of Afghanistan-specific material, but also transborder issues that are inherently regional.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No Kool Aid is on offer. I put some time in on a structure that I liked. It has some benefits which I've tried to enunciate. You and ALR disagree. OK, so change it! I promise I won't lose any sleep over it if you do, because I feel good about what I've been trying to do, but I also know that Wikipedia is a bunch of sand dunes which are subject to constant erosion and displacement -- this is the nature of the Wikipedia experiment. It is what it is. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh gee, oh wow, I am so surprised

The shocking revelation is offered,

I personally, for example, have spoken with a senior and very much in-the-club CIA official who told me that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked, at President Johnson's insistence.

Did you just discover this, and apparently missed the extensive NSA (not CIA) declassifications that document this, the new interviews in McMaster's book, some distinct inferences in the Pentagon Papers regarding CINCPAC OPPLAN 34A MAROPS, and...but why go on, if you don't know the difference in focus among military field organizations, DIA, CIA, NSA, MACV and CINCPAC J-2, etc.? What CIA organization was even in the chain of command or primary reporting for the Gulf of Tonkin? The closest they got was probably the CIA deputy at MACV-SOG, but SACSA was out of the loop.

No, the Post Office was not involved. As you say, there were White House orders, just as much as most of the assassination plots against Castro came principally from Robert, backed by John, Kennedy? Admittedly, the CIA personnel with the assignment had a skill level often comparable to the Three Stooges, but it should be noted that the sniper team came a lot closer than the poisoned wetsuit.

Now, if you want to address non-postal, clearly unauthorized, actions by CIA personnel, in violation both of U.S. law and of the Declaration of Helsinki/Nuremberg Code, Sidney Gottlieb would be a fine starting point. Sam Adams' work on politically compromised Vietnam statistics is informative. James Jesus Angleton wasn't just a loose cannon, but a loose battalion of artillery; Nosenko-Golitsyn crippled U.S. intelligence for years.

Postal service, indeed. No, I'm not given to the sensational, but to the cold documentation that is out there, with or without your personal conversations. I've had a few of those, here and there, myself. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,

Neither am I shocked that there was gambling going on in that establishment, it was just a for instance -- but still one that I found personally shocking at the time, told to me by a guy with a very technical job who was asked to sign off on a conclusion not at all supported by the radar data, data which he was responsible for.

Neither is my focus on highlighting unauthorized actions or even authorized boneheaded actions. My focus is just on, for each country, asking

1. What service was provided, and did we as taxpayers get what we paid for?
2. As visitors or neighbors of the people in that country, what was our collective personal and institutional impact on the people in that place, as played out in the individual actions that were performed (as categorized above) in the course of rendering the service that the taxpayers paid for?

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there are particular reason why the focus in a military history article in a global encyclopedia should be on determining whether taxpayers received value for money for services rendered? How does this square with Wikipedia's neutrality policies and prohibitions on original research? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger,

I'm just giving you my meta-motivation, I am not proposing that each article should be a taxpayer value study. People contribute to articles for different reasons, without necessarily imprinting those motivations on the articles themselves. For example, there are quite distinct coteries of editors working on the article for Salafism, taking to their edits quite opposite motivations; because of or in spite of this, the article survives and to some extent prospers.

In practice, for CIA activities in Country X, I would like to see something no more or less specific than Timeline of Afghanistan (October 2001). Could we please discuss this in terms of the merits of the Timeline of War in Afghanistan articles? I.e. I see what I did as being exactly as valid and in-the-spirit-of-Wiki as those articles. So please let's first establish the validity of those articles, and then with that as a reference point, discuss the validity of CIA in Country X.

In particular, if you don't like the spirit and design of the CIA Activities in Country X articles, then you should also be criticizing and taking action against the Timeline of War in Afghanistan articles.

Please read this entire section to see what all of my specific structural suggestions were, and the responses or non-responses of other editors to those suggestions.

To give you more of an idea though of what I mean by the "taxpayer value" metaphor, perhaps you can give me your thoughts on the taxpayer value supplied by the individuals discussed in this article, alternatively:

• The Time version, see also Time blog
• NY Times version
• Drop weapon
• Idaho Falls discussion

Thanks,

Erxnmedia (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

We've had quite a bit of discussion here both ways. Could we get some indications of thought; who believes the country articles ought to be merged back into the regional ones, and vice versa? Maybe that will better indicate consensus and show us a clear way ahead. Buckshot06(prof) 23:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For merger into regional

1. By all means spin out the ones that /do/ get too long (But obviously, retain mention etc at regional level, just pointing to the spin off for more detail) but every country? I can't imagine CIA Operations In Lichenstein will be a great read. Or CIA Operations In Monaco. Narson (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Against merger into regional

Merge?

F-4 Terminator 2020 is a very poorly qritten article about a subtype of the F-4. I am of the opinion it would be better merged into the parent F-4 article. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it's really a matter best raised at WP:AIR, I think. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:World War II politics

(Note: I have included the category into the discussion page for easier access during discussion) It is my opinion that this category is a mess. I would like to suggest it be overhauled, and suggest the category be renamed Politics and diplomacy of World War II with the following structure

• Domestic politics of World War II
  • Political attacks during World War II
  • Country political affairs of World War II
  • Local politics of World War II
  • Regional politics of World War II
  • Nationalist politics of World War II
  • Ethnic politics of World War II
  • Communist politics of World War II
  • Liberal politics of World War II
  • Independence political movements of World War II
• Diplomacy of World War II
  • Country diplomacy during World War II
  • Diplomats of World War II
  • Negotiations during World War II
  • Conferences during World War II
  • Agreements during World War II
  • Treaties of World War II
• Governments in exile during World War II
  • Royalty in exile during World War II
• Politics in occupied territories during World War II
  • Collaborationist politics during World War II
  • Resistance politics during World War II
• Short-lived states of World War II
• Political control of Media during World War II

Many articles really belong elsewhere, predominantly in the Home Front category, which is also a mess--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of those categories will have very few articles, leading to a needlessly complicated tree. "Negotiations during World War II"? How many articles about that do we have? Oberiko (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because the articles are lacking does not mean the subject is non-existent. Negotiations were important as precursors for developing diplomatic, economic and military policies and strategies.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If we don't have it then in terms of Wikipedia, it is non-existent. Being a programmer by training, I think in terms of YAGNI, don't build it until a need arises for it. Should, somehow, we get a significant number of "negotiations" or other such articles (that aren't for some reason fully encapsulated in another category), then fine. But pre-empting is just unnecessary confusion for the reader and putting a structure in place that has a good chance of not meeting future requirements. Oberiko (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-aligned states

Another suggestion is that the Category:World War II needs the Category:Non-aligned states of World War II because they do not fit into the Category:World War II national military histories used for the belligerent countries--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of our national histories should be (are?) sorted by faction. Otherwise we'd have considerable difficulty with the France, Italy, Finland and other states which changed allegience during the war. Oberiko (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I shoudl have used Neutral states during World War II--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And what would that provide for us? There are only a handful of countries that were officially neutral during World War II which had any influence, such as Spain and Vichy France. Why do they require a category, especially if we're already not categorizing by Allies and Axis? Oberiko (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that life did not stop in the neutral states while the war was going on. Some had significant impact of certain aspects of the war, like Switzerland and Sweden. However, my point is that they are not categorised as either Axis or Allies, and currently the categories are in the National military histories of World War II, and these countries had a fare greater impact on the diplomatic and economic levels then military. Even those that did get collateral damage like Republic of Ireland sill had histories outside of the military aspect.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, life didn't stop. In fact, most of the neutral nations had more pressing domestic issues and as such World War II is not a significant part of their history and likely don't require a dedicated "during World War II" article. For example, we wouldn't need a "history of Brazil during World War II" when History of Brazil (1930–1945) can quite easily contain all of their World War II involvement.

So, we again come back to the few who had an active enough involvement that they require a "during World War II" article. Even if so, why add the additional category? Don't get me wrong, it's a mess right now; but having a dedicated "national histories" category should be enough. Creating a sub-category for maybe five or so additional countries is just an additional layer that searchers will have to crawl through. Oberiko (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

List of military occupations

There is currently a debate over what should be listed in List of military occupations there is a WP:RM to move the current list from "List of military occupations" to "List of military occupations since 1907" to reflect the constraints imposed in the current article's lead, AFAICT from what he has written so that user:mrg3105 can write a new list with fewer constraints, see Talk:List of military occupations#Requested move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should treat this as a modern term resulting from the development of nationalism. Otherwise every conquest is a military occupation, making the article endless. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all Wandalstouring. There are other words that describe end of occupation such as annexation and incorporation. It is fairly easy to tell when an occupation becomes and annexation thus changing the basic status of the territory, and requiring a link to the List of military annexations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairly easy to tell in one person's opinion, but, everybody's opinions disagree, and the Poles and Russians for example have had long-running arguments over exact statuses. Not suitable for wikipedia before there is a legal convention on the subject. Buckshot06(prof) 20:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Questia subscription

Does anybody have the full subscription to this? It appears that full copyable books are available to subscribers. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight

Spotlight
An article covered by this WikiProject, 30 Years' War, is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Military bases

This CFD is a proposal to merge Category:Military bases into Category:Military facilities. I think it would benefit greatly by input from knowledgeable editors. Cgingold (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

List of military ambushes

Some thoughts on this article please , from the title there is scope for a huge "List" but at the moment it only contains the Attack on Pearl Harbor the Battle of Domstadtl and Lochry's Defeat. My own opinion and the article on Ambush states - An ambush is a long established military tactic in which an ambushing force uses concealment to attack an enemy that passes its position. So that would rule out the Attack on Pearl from being included. The article has a banner acknowledging that it is incomplete and asking for expansion but the last update was December 2006 Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the concept is poor. Ambushes are part of military warfare, but what constitutes an "ambush" could be hard to define. It is particularly true because the term is often used as a means of derision. The loosing side will say their side lost because of an ambush, the winning side will describe it as superior tactics---a successful surprise attack.Balloonman (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone think that this is worth keeping? Nick Dowling (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I considered nom'ing it for deletion, but decided to wait since it was brought here for discussion.Balloonman (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is worth keeping. Dreamafter (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not the sort of thing that lends itself to a list without entering into the realm of original research. The ambush article should mention a few notable ambushes, and leave it at that. When you nominate the list for deletion, make a link to this section, so we don't have to register our opinions twice! —Kevin Myers 04:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody already put a prod on it... I think that will take care of the article as it hasn't been edited in 2 years.Balloonman (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That was me. Would someone like to put a {{Prod-2}} on it? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 04:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Wouldn't Radar fall under our designation because it is used heavily in military uses and speaks a lot about the military applictions? Dreamafter (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It should, why it isn;t yet listed is anyone's guess. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add the talk page banner. Dreamafter (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of 'state terrorism' articles

There is currently a centralised discussion of articles which cover 'state terrorism' at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism which may be of interest to members of this project. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Byzantine navy now open

The A-Class review for Byzantine navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Satyr

Have you replaced User:SatyrTN's User:SatyrBot? We at WP:CHICAGO are looking for a replacement since he is no longer active. Please respond at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

War of the Spanish Succession

Is up for Featured Article Review. Please take a look and see if you are interested in helping it come up to current standards. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of "Military personnel by nation" subcategories

Currently, the subcategories of Category:Military personnel by nation are in the format of "nationality military personnel." This schema implies that all members of the military personnel are of that country's nationality - but this may not be the case. I believe that it would be better to rename all of these subcategories as "Military personnel of nation." The current sub-categories would be better categorized as "Military personnel by nationality," which is not the purpose of the categorization. I wanted to discuss this here first before bringing it to Cfd. --Scott Alter 19:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I found that this has been discussed previously (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 29#Military people categorization), and they came to the same conclusion that I had - to use "Military personnel of Foo". This discussion also included changing "people" to "personnel", which resulted in this Cfd. However, it does not seem as though they ever pursued this further to change the subcategories of Category:Military personnel by nation. --Scott Alter 03:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion would be go ahead and take it to CfD, seems a perfectly reasonable course of action after the decision on the root category. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 04:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In my categorisation concept military personnel is not entirely adequate if one reads how people write the articles. Firstly they are part of military organisations, so that is the parent category. The I did this:

• Military organisations in World War II

Individuals in military service during World War II

Individual senior ranking officers of World War II (General, Flag, or Air Officers rank)

Individual officers of World War II (Field or Senior Officers )

Individual junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)

Individual non-commissioned officers of World War II

Individual enlisted personnel of World War II

Individual volunteers during World War II (non-ranking civilians)

Individual resistance personnel of World War II

Individual civilians in military organisations during World War II (administrative, research, policy, etc.)

Notable animals in military organisations of World War II (mascots, companions, pets, etc.)

If left as Military personnel of Foo, what happens is that the category is used for all sorts of articles that really talk about units, and sometimes fail to state who the person was.

When applying to the individual nationalities, just add the nation into the sub-category, e.g. ::Individual Italian junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)

Individual USN junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)

Individual Free French junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)

be happy to hear constructive comments--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Its all good and well to call Mrg troll and vandal, but what is the real issue? Are people upset because they were not consulted (ego), or are people upset because I was unable to find suitable categories for articles and decided to do something about it?

No one took any notice of the issues of categorisation for months. I started the discussion last year and it went nowhere. How long does it exactly take to brainstorm into some action? The truth is that no one has taken the whole, or in this case, part project approach, and said, fine, how do we do this. Somewhere in the project there needs to be an article on Leadership. People seem to get very little done by consensus, and in this case the evidence of previous efforts based on consensus have borne poor "fruit". The categories are a mess. The fail to abide by the Wikipedia categorisation guidelines and project's own guidelines. They are highly ambiguous. Expansion operations and planning of the Axis Powers is an excellent example. This has now been placed in the main category World War II. Why?! The article is a List of Axis and Japanese operations! It is unreferenced and lacking any other content then the links to articles. Was it a major part of the Second World War? Its nature is only military, so it is unrelated to either the social, political, diplomatic or economic scope or impact of the Second World War, so why is it in the root World War II category?! Why is it even in existence? There is already a List of World War II military operations and the inclusion of "planned" invasions is pure original research without any references. With all the special task forces being created, what we need FIRST is an article quality control/proofing so what is there being presented to the reader is not offered half-baked from someone's sandbox. You will note that each one of the categories I created uses definitions from existing Wikipedia articles to help the author define where the article fits, and maybe even think about the contents of the article being submitted for reader perusal. Ok, I did not ask for consensus. Does any category I created not satisfy all Wikipedia criteria? In any case, I would urge people to wait until Woody places the master table I sent him in public domain before reverting what I had started.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Tilley

I have a featured article candidate review open for Benjamin Franklin Tilley, a US Navy rear admiral and military Governor of American Samoa. I know this is linked to off the Review page already, but I wanted to prod a bit. If anyone has any time or interest, I would really appreciate any comments (positive or negative) towards the FAC. Negative comments will help me to improve this article further. JRP (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Radical restructuring of Category:World War II

Discussion on how to restructure Category:World War II has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Category restructuring. All project members are invited to help discuss how to restructure this category. Thanks. Woody (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Memorial Day, an article within our scope, is presently linked to from the page. Please keep an eye out on the page lest our vandals get creative with the words and images on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't they just semiprotect frontpage content. This really consumes time without real necessity. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have done that, but I lack the needed tools to protect an article. Sorry, just doing the best I can :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection which is only for the TFA but can be used for other pages linked on the mainpage. Woody (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Cold War now open

The peer review for Cold War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --Eurocopter (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

FAR on Structural history of the Roman military

Structural history of the Roman military is up for review here.--Serviam (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Verdeja (tank) now open

The peer review for Verdeja (tank) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The oldest MILHIST FA

Would it be possible to generate a list of the ten (or so) oldest MILHIST articles? I think it would be interesting for the project to see which of the articles in its care have held the FA star for the longest amount of time. — an unlogged in TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

Weapon and vehicle Marks in dab pages

I started three dab pages to help readers who only know the "mark" number of the item they are looking for: Mark XIV, Mark XV and Mark XVIII. I feel I don't have the depth of knowledge to continue the effort. I am imagining a series of dab pages that cover all possible marks. Care to incorporate this stab at organization into your project? Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't have the knowledge to help much, but I will say that's a remarkably good idea :-)--Serviam (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There will be a certain amount of tussling involved. The Mark I through Mark VII dab pages already exist except that the Mark II page has a radio telescope sitting on it. We'll have to bump it! The Mark VIII and Mark IX pages are about tank models... easy enough to fold into the overall concept. Mark X is a singer songwriter. :/ Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The WP:WikiProject Disambiguation is also now involved in this effort. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reguested articles list

For those not aware of it, there is a list of requested articles outside of the task forces in the Project.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Links to the UK MOD website

The MOD website is being revamped any old links may not work to solve the problem add a 2 to the www i.e http://www2.army.mod.uk Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". I will cross post this to the British Military history taskforce. Thanks for the heads up. Woody (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST and WP:VG collaboration

After a lengthy discussion between the coordinators we have decided to partner with Wikiproject Video Games for 30 days to share review assests. Effective June 1st, all peer reviews from the Video Games Wikiproject will be crossposted here for MILHIST editors to provide constructive feedback, while MILHIST peer reviews will be cross posted to WP:VG for constructive feedback. The trial will run through June 30 and is open to all members. At the end of June we will revisit the program and assess its results, and if consensus from both project's members is in favor of maintaining the program we will take steps to make this a perment feature. All editers wishing to take part in the program are encuraged to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Partner peer review notice to inform the Video Game project of open MILHIST peer reviews. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Uriel Sebree

I've just finished Uriel Sebree, Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Fleet from 1909-1910. Before I submit it for peer review and work out the textual kinks, I wanted to ask if someone from this project can take a look at it and make sure that my terminology and such are accurate. I'm not an expert at this period (or any period) so having someone with more experience than I take a look at this might be a good idea. I have plenty of contemporary sources, but it doesn't hurt to check. Thanks very much for any assistance you can provide. JRP (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick read through it and everything appears to be in good order. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation of page names

The unresolved topic discussed at great length at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#Rank articles: capitalization of title, and to a lesser degree at talk:rear admiral, is taking on a new life at talk:General Officer#Requested move. -- Pdfpdf (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pre-WWI US fleets and squadrons

Can anyone point me at a good reference for this period? I'm trying to work out whether William T. Swinburne was the first Commander-in-Chief of the combined Pacific Fleet or the second. I have some conflicting data about Read Admiral Caspar F. Goodrich and Rear Admiral William H. Brownson commanding it before Swinburne, but it depends on the date when the fleets were formally consolidated. Confusingly, they could have been in command of the Asiatic or Philippines Squadrons or they could have been tagged for the post and then given other assignments Is there a reference someplace with dates and lists of the C-in-Cs of the various fleets and squadrons as they connected and then disconnected between 1906 and 1910? Really, I'm just trying to make the Swinburne succession box correct, but it would be helpful to know. JRP (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Uriel Sebree now open

The peer review for Uriel Sebree is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 02:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Verdeja now open

The A-Class review for Verdeja (tank) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

New General Bios

Usually I do not work outside of ACW articles, but I have created biographies of a few current Generals I'm familiar with, Guy Sands-Pingot, Joseph Taluto, David Morris (American General), Herbert Altshuler, and Donald B. Smith. If anyone can help find some wikilinks for them (or would like to help expand and reference), I'd appreciate any assistance as I've only found a few articles to link to them thus far. MrPrada (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

We have a tricky decision we're trying to consider at Talk:List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957#Request for comment; simply put, should Soviet 'home guard' divisions of World War II be described as People's Militia or Narodnoe Opolcheniye, depending on how one interprets WP:UE. Further opinions would be welcome. Buckshot06(prof) 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Lince (tank) now open

The peer review for Lince (tank) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 01:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas39's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, Tanthalas39, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of Tanthalas39's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. Kirill ^(prof) 01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Attention

Aircraft carrier has been identified as a GA-class article in need of major improvements during a recent GA sweep. Anyone interested in help the article stay at GA class can check out the list of needed improvements at the bottom of the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinions for WWII section

Howdy.

I'm hoping to get some third opinions at the World War II talk page about potentially replacing the last section of the article. Any comments and opinions are welcome. Oberiko (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Blade Runner (video game) now open

The peer review for Blade Runner (video game), an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

New task forces/groupings

Going through the articles which do not have task forces I've noticed that we have to leave Ireland, some countries in East/Central Europe (like Slovakia) and Afghanistan without regional tags because we do not have task forces for them. Might I suggest, at least, consideration of a Central Asian task force which might cover the five former Soviet Central Asian states and Afghanistan? Meanwhile, what would people think of a Central European task force to fill in the gaps that are not covered? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In principle, it's a good idea. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I reckon they are good ideas. Though would they be able to muster enough participants? Kyriakos (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

SMS has just raised the idea of a Pakistan one on my talk page. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: on the basis that 'India' covers the whole subcontinent, so far, without a Pakistan task force, I've been putting Pakistani articles into the India TF - though I was aware of this issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whereas I've been putting them into South Asia ... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Pakistani articles should be under Pakistan and no other country. The South Asia is correct term of the this region and not India or Indian subcontinent. Misaq Rabab (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if there's popular support for all these first I guess we're probably looking for minimum support from, say, two coordinators and, at least, eight members - all of whom would be expected to sign up - to make it worth the effort. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How are we defining "Central Europe" here? I'm assuming we'd use the standard definition, which would include Germany and Poland (and, using our typical "states and peoples" definition of scope, containing everything covered by those two task forces right off the bat); is this the intent here, or are people interpreting the term more narrowly? Kirill ^(prof) 13:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are a number of issues arising here. I've mentioned a related one below. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the central Asian and the Central Europe TFs, what time period would they have? Kyriakos (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate support or oppose with very brief comments if appropriate beneath each of the following:

Central Asian military history task force

• Support - Buckshot06 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC). Deserves some separate coverage of Central Asia independent from Russia, and would be a good idea to have one that included Afghanistan, so all those article don't just end up in the US taskforce.

Central European military history task force

• support or oppose

Comment: only certain gaps here are Slovakia, so far, so we need to be careful on defining in and out of scope. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I like the idea but I just want to know what countries would be involved and what years would this span. Would countires like Switzerland, Austria, Hungary and the Czech Republic be part of it. Kyriakos (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment A TF for "Rest of Europe" might be good (ie countries not covered specifically by other TFs). The name would need some thought though. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I might suggest a general European task force, which would include all these articles for countries that don't have their own specific task force, such as Eastern Europe, etc. It would also have articles for places that do have their own specific task force, such as France, Germany, etc. It would certainly have enough members, and would be very large. It could also help standardize these articles. If nobody else likes this idea, I would support the "rest of Europe" idea. Borg Sphere (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Pakistani military history task force

• Support --SMS ^Talk 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC) There are about 546 articles currently related to Military of Pakistan, and I think a task force deserves for it to be here.

• Support - Misaq Rabab (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC).
• Support - Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC). This task force is badly needed to document the Pakistani military heritage. Military-related articles for before the partition can come up under South Asian or the Indian-subcontinental task forces, however, for after the partition a Pakistan military history task force is required.
• Support --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Sohailstyle (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A Pakistan TF would presumably have a scope date from partition. The Indian TF wouldn't, because it currently covers (a) all of the historic Indian sub-continent and (b) from partition, the Republic of India. This could lead to situations where, for example, regiments originally raised in what is now Pakistan but was then the Raj would be in the scope of the Indian TF but successor regiments raised after partition would be in the Pakistan TF. I can see plenty of potential here for squabbles. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought the answer to this one wasn't too hard. Both task force tags, and an understanding that the Indian TF generally covered the to-48 period, and the Pakistani, the post-48.(Not that that usually matters much; in terms of this one, regimental history, people seem to be pretty gentlemenly about it.) By the way, does anyone have any idea where/why regiments.org went? It leaves a massive hole. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think any formation that was raised before 1947 and is currently part of Military of Pakistan can be covered by the Pakistan TF. I don't think that will be conflicting or controversial. Secondly even I am curious about regiments.org, I wanted to extract a lot of info from there. --SMS ^Talk 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Providing it's clear in the scope how it ought to be handled, I don't see a problem either. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Pahari Sahib 08:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. this does look promising but a lot of support has come from brand-new members. Perhaps we could revisit it again in a month or so after they've had an opportunity to get their feet under the table and contribute to some Pakistan-related articles? The issue here, as I see it, is whether the proposed task force will have sufficient critical mass to sustain itself and not just peter out after creation. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although there has been a bit of a boom in activity from Pakistani articles at GAC and FAC recently. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

War Films Task Force

The April 2008 issue of the newsletter states that the MILHIST project scope has been expanded to include war songs, but no task force exists to adopt these articles. Is there any support for expanding the war films task force to encompass all media? - Canglesea (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an idea that's been mentioned before; but, since the current task force is actually a joint one with the films project, re-scoping it would be more trouble than it's worth, I think. We can always create other task forces if there are significant communities of editors for those topics. Kirill ^(prof) 16:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could change films to just be "Wars in popular culture" or something like that? We'd need a better name, just came up with that off the top of my head, but that could include films, books, songs, etc. Borg Sphere (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Brock

Isaac Brock has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 19:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

New York Trip - Photos

Greetings all! I will be going on a trip to New York in early September, and will be taking my trusty digital camera with me. I'll have a few hours to spare each day to wander around, and was wondering if there were any specific photos that MILHIST wanted from the city itself? I'm not sure if there's anything military-related i the city, but if anyone can think of anything they want, then let me know. I guess a list of requests would be best, and when I go on holiday I'll snap as many as I can and then upload them. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How about some of the NY ARNG armories? The one in the area north of Union Square looked pretty impressive, but I didn't have my camera handy. A good top-line photo for the New York National Guard article, possibly. Buckshot06(prof) 12:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you get a chance, a picture or two of the Intrepid mesuem would nice. Intrepid is currently absent from here berth in NY, so it will be a unique chance to get a photograph or two of a muem ship without the ship :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lists of battles and wars.

In the articles List of conflicts in Asia and List of battles 2001-current do not include all battles or wars. Can someone help expande these.--EZ1234 (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

His Majesty's Stationary Office

For the past few years I've come across publications by the HMSO that were published during World War II - things like 'The Tiger Kils' and 'By Air To Battle', and I want to eventually collect all that were published. However, I'm having a devil of a time finding any kind of list of what was published by HMSO. I don't suppose anyone can help me? Skinny87 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

C class rating

In case anybody didn't kinow, there's a proposal and a vote to introduce a C class rating above start class and below B class here. If this gets accepted, it will be a huge task to reassess all the B class articles that should be in this class. Maybe some sort of drive should be organised with prizes for the people who do the most? I'm assuming articles like this will be the ones that are downgraded.--Serviam (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. There have also been a few discussions about this on the Coordinators talk page.If this proposal passes it won't automatically impact on us as individual projects don't have to use C class if they don't want to. Personally, I'd rather that we not use it as it seems to do the same job as Start class is currently doing and the reassessments would be a waste of time now and in the future. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Lissa (1811) now open

The peer review for Battle of Lissa (1811) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight concern, would welcome a second opinion

I mainly edit on Falklands War topics and I noticed this comment[4] on the talk page of an editor I've been collaborating with. The comment "I believe I have done much to rectify their image as 'poor fighters'", caused me some concern, as it indicated a desire for a POV editing campaign, so I had a look at what this editor has been up to. Some of his contributions seems to reverse the emphasis of the article[5] and his English could do with some help. I don't know enough about the subject matter so I can't comment but at least one of the sources he'd removed (which someone else had commented on its reliability) contradicts his edit. Also he seems to dismiss official histories as biased and diminishing the contributions of the Italians[6]. He also seems in the habit of adding extraneous external links to articles that aren't referred to in the text[7]. My impresion is of an editor who may simply be misguided but genuinely thinks he's making an improvement. My concern is that his campaign is damaging the quality of the articles he's editing. I would welcome some comment as to whether my concerns are justified. Justin talk 09:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts that the editors contributions were valuable. The problem is, that reverting his edits will likely lead to a clash because people who want to set the record straight are highly possessive. Sorry, but I have doubts that this will result in anything but a clash. You can possibly recruit some other members who are familiar with the topic and make reasonable edits to try and explain the errors to him, but I have doubts that this will lead to any results. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You have pretty much hit the nail on the head there, that was precisely my concern. Justin talk 11:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

user:Nick Dowling has also been interacting with this new wikipedian on North African Campaign issues. You may wish to examine the line he's taken when talking to him. Just my 2 cents. Buckshot06(prof) 21:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that their edits to the Seige of Tobruk article are OK (what they've added actually brings the article more into line with serious Australian histories, which acknowledge that the 9th Division had some bad days and that the Italian units involved in the seige performed fairly well - albeit only in static roles) but the addition of German and Italian propaganda from WW2 to other articles and the very odd assertion that this is a better source than the Australian and NZ official histories is totally unacceptable and rather worrisome. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, thanks for the input, perhaps a few quiet reverts when he's got bored might be the solution? Justin talk 19:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I came across this user in a merger debate/content dispute a couple of months ago involving and Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade. He was heavily criticised by one or two editors for adding material not supported by his sources. I checked out some of his additions against the sources myself and thought that broadly they were reasonably accurate summaries given that English is not his first language and that some were spot on. e also went to great lengths (including adding supporting text from sources in footnotes) to make his material accurate. (See talk pages for the detail.) My take, for what it's worth, is he is a tenacious and hardworking editor, who acts in good faith, but sometimes has difficulty with English nuance (both understanding and expressing). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Force Research Unit

Grateful for some eyes on the article at Force Research Unit, it seems all pretty speculative and OR to me, as well as quite a lot of knitting together bits and peices about who may or may not have been involved. I've also asked WP:BLP to review from the biographical perspective.

Cheers

ALR (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Military history articles flagged for cleanup

Hello,

currently, almost 12.000 military history articles (or 17%) are flagged for cleanup of some sort. Are you interested which articles are affected? I offer to generate lists of these articles; see User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. These lists can either be generated for the project as a whole (which would be rather lengthy in this case), or for individual task forces.

If you're interested, please sign up at User talk:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the kind offer. We can identify them through our category system and, as you say, lists would be rather lengthy though this may prove useful after current initiatives are completed. Thanks again for thinking for us, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lince (tank) now open

The A-Class review for Lince (tank) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Roman-Persian Wars now open

The A-Class review for Roman-Persian Wars is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Varsity now open

The A-Class review for Operation Varsity is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment statistics comparison

In case anyone is curious, I've put together a comparison of different projects' assessment statistics that gives a possibly interesting indication of where we stand relative to other WikiProjects. Kirill ^(prof) 17:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. I've been comparing the updates of the Maritime warfare task force and WP:SHIPS for quite some time now via a page in my userspace. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, although with FAs and FLs combined, that can skew the stats a lot, particularly with sports projects, which tend to have large numbers of FLs of player lists and stats. From writing FAs and FLs, FLs take some single-digit number of hours to prepare. In one case about two hours (excluding writing the actual pages). So if all the players pages are already there, you can just keep on recycling the stats with different criteria and rack up a lot of FLs. I'm surprised as well that 18 FAs can trump about 85% of Wikiprokects. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Topical consensus / discussion template?

Over at WWII, we tend to go over the same debates pretty often, usually due to new-comers who have not (quite understandably) gone through our fairly massive archives; I imagine that this is an issue which affects other topics as well. I don't really have a problem with re-opening these discussions, but doing so usually means dredging up all the supporting material and often refuting the same arguments. I think it would be quite useful for when this issue comes up, we could just quickly just give them the link to the consensus and discussions.

As a rough guide, I'm thinking something that would look like the following:

Topic	Consensus (date)	Discussion(s)
Infobox combatants	Keep as "Allies" and "Axis" (some date)	discussion link(s)

The date would show when consensus was established and itself also be a link to a concise page detailing the reasons for (and against) the current consensus; the discussion link(s) would lead to various discussions already had on the topic.

The advantages I see of this are as follows:

• Reduce against-consensus changes: Quite often a new user (to the article) will change what's been established and agreed on to something else, usually due to simply being unaware that an agreement on the matter was reached. If consensus boxes exist, more diligent editors might check first to see if they are going against the grain.
• Reduce repetitive discussion: Instead of redoing the same arguments over again and again, this would reduce it to raising the topic again primarily due to new arguments/evidence/sources, or if the consensus was established a considerable time ago.

Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, I certainly know articles like The Holocaust could do with them. Full Support! Skinny87 (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We do have {{FAQ}} which is very useful for talkpages. See Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63) for it in action. I think this is what you are looking for. Create a subpage and then add the questions and links onto it. Then add the {{FAQ}} onto the talkpage and huzzah! Woody (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that actually worked. I got the idea to add FAQ to the battleship pages after seeing its implementation on the abortion talk page. To me, it seemed to solve a lot of problems, so I adopted it for use with Iowa's. So far, both the ship article version and the class page version seem to be solving the problems we used to without the great wall of china length accompaning discussions. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know about the FAQ. I'll give that a shot and see if it works. Oberiko (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:World War II#Starting a FAQ if anyone is interested. Thanks. Woody (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FACs needing attention

As ever, the FAC process is desperately short of reviewers. Eyes are wanted on many articles there including the following ones of Milhist relevance:

• Brian Horrocks ^{(FAC comments)}
• Montana class battleship ^{(FAC comments)}
• 1965–1966 Central African Republic coup d’état ^{(FAC comments)}
• Battle of Verrières Ridge ^{(FAC comments)}
• Verdeja (tank) ^{(FAC comments)}

All comments are welcomed. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tent pegging now open

The A-Class review for Tent pegging is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Lunatics take over asylum

See talk: World War II Jooler (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not very much inline with WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL nor is it very informative of what you want to achieve with this remark. Arnoutf (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Attention seeking only. Like saying Lookout! Jooler (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Myst III: Exile now open

The peer review for Myst III: Exile, an article within the scope of the Video Games WikiProject, is now open. The Video Games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation Templates

I'm trying to cite The Times Online, but for the life of me I can't find the citation templates for newspapers and books and so forth, the ones with the title and date and author and the like. Could anyone help out a poor newbie? :) Skinny87 (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Try {{cite news}} and otherwise Template:Citation is generic but there is cite book, .... --Matilda ^talk 22:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Wisconsin (BB-64) now open

The peer review for USS Wisconsin (BB-64) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Eliminating "American" from American Revolutionary War

The is an ongoing debate at Talk:American Revolutionary War concerning proposals to eliminate the term "American" when referring to those folks like George Washington fighting the British. Since this is the most common term used in all Wikipedia articles on the Revolution, the elimination of this term would have repercussions that extend beyond the single article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

True. Not changing it, however, perpetuates a common mistaken belief the Rebs weren't British, which they all were. Trekphiler (talk)06:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Category question

Before I start rocking the WP:SHIP, er boat, I'd figured I'd ask the experts here. :)

Category:Royal Canadian Navy aircraft carriers vs. Category:Aircraft carriers of Canada

I know this is a narrow example, but really, how many non-RCN aircraft carriers are there gonna be in Canada? From what I have seen so far, Category:Aircraft carriers of (the) XXX appears to be the correct naming convention. Thx. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to some degree at WP:SHIPS (out of interest why don't you want to bring this up there, we don't bite you know ;), see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)#Naming conventions for naval ship lists. In short it's a bit more complicated than you make out, but feel free to weigh in there. Benea (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A better question to ask is why there is both Category:Aircraft carriers by country and Category:Aircraft carriers by navy. These seem to be complete duplicates serving the same purpose - unless there are some countries that have aircraft carriers in military services other than the navy. Some countries (including Canada, as you mentioned) are in both of these categories, and the contents of the categories are identical. Either the "by country" or "by navy" scheme should be decided on, and then merge the two hierarchies together. --Scott Alter 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there were the Escort carriers operated by the Japanese Army...Nigel Ish (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To answer the 'how many non-RCN aircraft carriers are there gonna be in Canada?' question, since 1968 the naval arm of the Canadian armed forces is the Canadian Forces Maritime Command, not the Royal Canadian Navy. So any new ships commissioned into the Canadian Navy will be part of the CFMC, and not the RCN. Whilst some countries have only had one navy, others have had several. The Royal Navy has gone from being an English navy, to an English and Scottish one, to a Great British and Irish one, to an Great British and Northern Irish one. So an Scottish navy ship is not necessarily a Royal Navy one, and a Royal Navy ship is not necessarily an Irish navy ship, though at one time it would have been. This is why the '"by country" or "by navy" scheme' has already been discussed and the matter found to be quite a complex one. As at least a matter of courtesy you might want to inform WP:SHIPS before you attempt to reach a new consensus or overturn an existing one. Benea (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• All good responses and info, which, like most things on WP, is spread over several areas. The WP:GNOME in me was thinking this was just a simple mis-cat or dupe which could be fixed with some recats and deletes, but clearly is larger than that. Trying to start a multi-WikiProject consensus isn't my idea of fun, so I'll just let sleeping dogs lie. Thx. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability experts requested

Howdy.

Several editors at Talk:World War II disagree with the reliability of sources provided. I have posted over at the reliability noticeboard a listing of the sources that seem to be under debate and would appreciate any opinions on the matter. Oberiko (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And I've started a second one pertaining to whether the opinion counts as, at least, a significant minority or not on the NPOV noticeboard. Again, any feedback more then welcome. Oberiko (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Alpeyrie pictures

Not long ago, Getty photographer Jonathan Alpeyrie emailed the OTRS photo submission address to say he wanted to submit some pictures he had taken in several recent conflicts. I don't think I have to tell you guys that getting good quality freely licensed pictures from 3rd world war zones is virtually impossible. So, without further ado: Commons:Category:Works by Jonathan Alpeyrie Raul654 (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Great photos. I've added a couple of the photos to pages, but I'm having some difficulties because the files are so large (I think). Can someone with more technical know-how than me take a look at this? Leithp 09:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Scratch that, it seems to work okay now. Leithp 09:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Nguyen Van Nhung now open

The A-Class review for Nguyen Van Nhung is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Central-Eastern Europe task force

I've just come across a Czech politician and general who I've been unable to regionally put into a task force. Looking at the map, the countries not covered are Switzerland, Austria (unless through the German task force), Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria (Romania now has its own task force), as well as all the political entities in those areas up until now. This is the area uncovered by any task force. Just FYI for the moment. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

William II, German Emperor

There is a proposal to move this article to a new name. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Zanac now open

The peer review for Zanac, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! giggy _(:O) 07:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality versions proposal

We discussed on the coordinators talk page flagged revisions, especially the quality versions proposal for our featured material and possibly A-class articles. The problem is, after passing a review the article is in a shape that we agreed upon as very good. Now the usual edits made to such an article are not in notch with the high quality standards we have for such material, but are vanadlism, unreferenced material or have stylistic flaws. This results in a large amount of maintenance work to keep an article up to the high standards. Quite often this is done by the creator of the featured material or A-class articles, but often material is detoriating.

That's what our new concept tries to face by establishing flagged revisions, initially the version that passed the high quality review and only with the implementation of new edits that meet the quality standards. To decide what gets implemented one has to be appointed surveyor by an adminstrator.

We intend to establish a central list of surveyors and what articles they are responsible for, plus a page were complains about the behaviour of surveyors can be voiced that is linked from our project's template. Our idea is to hold within the project surveyor elections where these declare which articles they want to survey and people can voice concerns and support for giving certain editors these rights. The coordinators close the vote after a set condition of support has been reached. Afterwards an administrator bestows the surveyor rights upon the candidate.

The prime source for recuitment are the editors who brought an article to a high quality class and we want to actively pursue their participation. However, any editor can be nominated for that position. The central listing is meant as a measure to keep track of the coverage of articles and to direct the efforts of surveyors not be out of their field of expertise. That's why we discourage edits of articles a surveyor is not listed for. In case we are not able to cover all articles coordinators or other entrusted members may be appointed to this position as a measure of emergency and cover broadly any topic in need, but that should only be a last resort. Ideally, an article should be covered by more than one surveyor, providing mutual control and security against the threat of editor inactivity.

The questions are:

1. Do the members of this project want flagged quality versions?
2. Do they agree with the proposed system or are there suggested alternatives?
3. What are the necessary conditions of support to become a surveyor?
4. Should it be limited to featured material or should A-class articles be included?
5. What should be considered reasons for reverting the surveyor rights of an editor?

Feel free to voice your opinions. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got a few points about this proposal:

• I'm generally against added bureaucracy and surveyor elections sound like that to me. I'd far rather it was done on an informal basis, if it needs to be done at all. These things are very likely to be contentious, mini-RFAs probably.
• "we discourage edits of articles a surveyor is not listed for". Given that surveyors are likely to be our highest quality contibutors, limiting the areas they can edit sounds like a bad idea in terms of overall quality and annoying for the person concerned.
• Administrators set surveyor flags. What about administrators? Would they have to stand for a surveyor election to gain a mandate to edit flagged articles?

I don't think the flagged quality idea has developed to the point where we should implement it yet. I'd be happier if we looked at this again in 6 months or so, to see how this is panning out across Wikipedia. Leithp 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've argued for some time that we (as in Wikipedia, not just MilHist specifically) need something along these lines. That said, I think it'd be more practical (at least to start with) to simply have a "version restoration" as part of our review departement, esepcially since we already have fixed links to article milestones via the {{ArticleHistory}} template.

I'd think it could be as straight-forward as an editor (any editor) posting "I'd like to restore article X to the last milestone version due to Y" and, after getting a quick consensus, an admin would restore. Even better would be a template (something like {{restore|reason|version}}, with the version being optional and defaulting to the last milestone if not specified) which an editor could just slip onto the talk page of the article. We could probably then have it follow the same format as the current RFC templates. Oberiko (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been following the debate at Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions. I see the need to start experimenting with this feature in an area that could actually draw some concrete benefit. Maybe MILHIST is such an area. You guys appear (from the outside) to be very well organized, if a trifle bureaucratic, and you do have a good record (I have heard) with GAs and FAs. So if you think that Flagged Revisions would actually assist in your work, I encourage you to think about it. Keep in mind that if FLR is adopted, the Surveyor rights will end up being *very* widely distributed, so it's unwise to make Surveyor be a highly trusted position. There is a higher level, that may be called Reviewer, that could be worth holding elections for (if you want to do that). EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps the special projects department could be our testing bed? They're already dedicated to the highest-viewed articles related to military history, so they seem like a good choice. Oberiko (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I want as little bureaucracy as necessary because it's a heck lot more work for us. However, during the coordinators discussion some problems appeared. For example, not every editor making a FA uses the sources properly or even pushes an agenda. Somehow, we must have a process where such concerns can be voiced before and after the nomination to surveyorship. The nomination should be the least bureaucratic, say three support votes and no oppose is sufficient and in case there is one oppose it should be six support votes.
• Surveyors should be a group that knows their field and have an interest in checking new material if it seems odd. We have few editors creating several quality materials, so we are likely to have a smaller group of surveyors than quality material entries.
• Yes, admins would stand formally for surveyor election and would be denominated in case of serious faults, although they can give themselves these rights anytime.
• Someone has to start and so far this project has a good record with the implementation of new measures that other projects do adopt afterwards. Don't wait for others to do the job, do it yourself. That's the only workable approach on wikipedia.

Restoring to the last article milestone means that an article will get stuck in the last version that passed a quality review because we do not make it article milestones each time some new properly referenced material gets inserted afterwards. Freezing top quality material this way is against the spirit of openness of wikipedia for constant improvement. The quality versions improve the ability to include good material to the last good version. That's all, but the problem is how to organize things.

We will nominate probably less surveyors than their are top quality articles because few editors often create a multitude of them. Limiting a surveyor to his fields of expertise helps him to check whether the sources are used correctly. Otherwise we end up with incorrect citations that looked good at first glance, a problem that can be very difficult to correct.

The special projects is no good starting place because they deal mainly with Start and B-class material that needs a lot of editing and isn't entirely referenced. Judging what should be included or not, as suggested in the flagged quality versions proposal, leads to nothing because there exist no quality within the article that can be used as a point of reference. If there would be complains that it isn't possible to deal with a high level of vandalism, we might introduce the flagged sighted revisions, but that is only a measure against vandalism and more or less an alternative to semiprotection, enabling IP editors to make edits other than on the talk page that might be used. It is no help against the degradation of quality articles because the surveyor right is intended to be widespread and not all of them will check for correct use of sources or even existing references.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist groups and the MilHist project

Why are articles such as South Armagh Sniper (1990-1997) being legitimised as conventional military operations by the MilHist project? The article has its own infobox where the ‘casualty’ figures seem to sugest that they were lost as a result of a state authorised military operation. These are not casualties but victims of a proscribed terrorist group.

Even if the Milhist project has been seduced by their terminology, (brigades, companies etc) the IRA are NOT a military organisation. Their actions are illegal, considered CRIMINAL in both the Republic and the UK. Why is the MilHist project legitimising this criminality? The civilian 'Casualties' listed in the project's standard infoboxes is particulary galling

Why are ETA, Al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad etc etc, not covered by the Military History project. Are you planning to legitimise these groups as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.54.199 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The South Armagh Sniper was a conflict which involved the British Army, thus is regarded as a military operation. Al-Qaeda/ETA are terrorist organizations, therefore not part of our project. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; the presence of the British Army clearly makes the article a military topic (although I have my doubts about the choice of infobox, personally).

More generally, legality has relatively little bearing on scope; insurgencies, rebellions, and so forth tend to be illegal by their very nature—rather few legal codes recognizing the legality of overthrowing a government—but that doesn't prevent them from being within the realm of warfare (conventional or otherwise) which we concern ourselves with. Kirill ^(prof) 01:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And I agree with you about the info box and will remove it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Arms of France

France Moderne: Azure, three fleurs-de-lys or

Why are we not using the arms of France on eighteenth-century infoboxes: Azure, three fleurs-de-lys or? Until I emended it, American Revolutionary War was using a white banner; War of the Austrian Succession is still using Argent, seme de lys or. Both of these have the major problem of being unrecognizable; one of them looks like a blank space; the other looks like gold and white polka-dots on the scale of our infoboxes.

I have some doubts to whether the gold on white banner is even accurate; it seems to have gotten into Template:country data France because of one editor's recollection of the history of the tricolor, a confusion the white cockade of the kings with the arms of France. But the more important point is, if we have a choice of defensible icons, we should choose one which can be seen.

A square image is at Image:Île-de-France flag.svg. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

While it may be inaccurate, I do prefer the three fleurs-de-lys. The white banner of france is not immediatly identifiable. Narson (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Note, we are spreading this discussion to at least three talk pages at this point (partially my fault). Lets try and keep it here Template talk:Country data France and consider this just an information note for anyone interested.--Caranorn (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ray, Iran, as a military objective

Something seems off regarding the title of the article, Ray, Iran, as a military objective. As the experts, would you take a look. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Greco-Persian Wars now open

The A-Class review for Greco-Persian Wars is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Wandalstouring (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal Aberdeenshire Highlanders

I have a scanned photo that I know dates from between 1875-1878 of W. S. Gilbert in the Royal Aberdeenshire Highlanders]]. Evidence: Ainger, Michael, Gilbert and Sullivan: A Dual Biography, page 112, "The highlight of [1875] for the Royal Aberdeenshire Highlanders was a change in Regimental dress: from that year Gilbert donned the kilt as part of his uniform". Ibid, p. 154 gives his resignation date as 24 April, 1878. Hence, this photo, Image:Captain_Gilbert004.jpg must date from between those dates.

I mention it here as it would presumably be useful for illustrating the Volunteer Army division as well, but I cannot find any page on it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Brevity now open

The A-Class review for Operation Brevity is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Military history of Australia during World War II now open

The peer review for Military history of Australia during World War II is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 11th Airborne Division (United States) now open

The peer review for 11th Airborne Division (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 14:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

GAN backlog

There's a bit of a backlog with the war and military GANs here, with 7 awaiting reviews atm.--Serviam (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There are now ten articles awaiting review. I'm chasing up two editor who are reviewing articles but have not passed/failed them after the 7-10 day period, and I've passed two, have a third under review and I'll have a fourth underway in a few days. However, I could really do with some help in reducing the backlog, if anyone can pitch in. Skinny87 (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Citing infobox sources

A comment has been made in the A-Class Review for Operation Brevity that an infobox figure for strength should be sourced, even though the infobox only summarises data that is fully sourced in the main narrative. This seems unnecessary, and as far as I can see tends to defeat the purpose of an infobox and clutters it up a little. When I challenged the comment, the response was that it is closer to FA level, with Operation Camargue cited as an example, but the FAC for that makes no mention of such a requirement, and Omaha Beach was promoted FA without infobox data being cited. Is their any policy about this? (Posted here for future reference and to avoid cluttering up the ACR discussion). --FactotEm (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, Operation Varsity, which is now A-Class, and which I participated in heavily, has sources cited in the infoboxes for casualties and troop strengths. Personally I like it that way, and see it as more academic, although that's only my opinion. Skinny87 (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If the number has a citation later in the article, I'd say it doesn't need a redundant one in the infobox, similarly to how redundant citations aren't necessary for the lead section. Kirill ^(prof) 14:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Kirill, but usually I just comply if the reviewer wants it, in order to save arguing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to nit-pick, but other projects like SHIPS may or may not have a policy regarding the use of citations in the template space, so it may be a good idea to check the other project pages and see if they have anything to say about this. I know from experince that people tend to cite info in the template space becuase it could concievably be challenged. I know thats why I added citations to the battleship class pages. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Times archive

The Times, probably the most famous British newspaper, currently has 200 years of archives available gratis on their website. I believe this is only for a short period, until they start charging. I've been trying a few subjects so far and the search function and OCR is quite effective. Well worth a look for anyone who needs contemporary sources, or an obituary for a biography. Leithp 14:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! What a resource, even if only for limited time. Thanks for posting the info here. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This post indicates that UK residents can access the archives free through their library card, and have been able to for some time. Just one more reason for me to renew mine. Leithp 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Leopard 2E (tank) now open

The peer review for Leopard 2E (tank) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 13:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Łódź insurrection (1905)

Can somebody check this article if it meets B-class criteria? I still cannot figure out how to request a B review on the review MILHIST section; perhaps somebody could add instructions for that there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Done! It's in the Assessment dept. I'll put a note in Review linking to it :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I have a big batch of articles that I think qualify for a B-class from milhist area, and I will list it there (I plan to nominate some later for GA/A classes).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Military training facility/Military training base

Do we have an article on the subject? We should probably create some disambigs at training field, training ground, proving ground and similar articles (I am trying to see if Polish articles on pl:poligon wojskowy and pl:poligon badawczy have correct interwiki links).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Display of American divisional shoulder sleeve insignia in bios?

I'm currently involved in a discussion at Talk:Ross A. McGinnis (the most recent Medal of Honor recipient) as to whether this is relevant or necessary, at least as far as it currently is on the article. Additional opinions appreciated. Thanks. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood's POV on consensus

Just thought that people here may be interested in misuse of consensus on the issue of racism as expressed by Eastwood - "Has he ever studied the history?" [8]--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Mount Austen, the Galloping Horse, and the Sea Horse is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 03:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Strasbourg now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Strasbourg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Wandalstouring (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Army officers

Looking at this cat, I feel we need Category:Army officers by country. Also, we could use Category:Navy officers by country and Category:Air force officers by country and possibly Category:Military officers by country and Category:Military officers by branch and country. Comments? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know what is the notability criteria for this category--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FA on the Main Page

An article within our scope, HMS Cardiff (D108), will be the FA for the day. Any help in checking and reverting vandalism would be apreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. This probably isn't the place to raise this, but why aren't featured articles protected against IP editing? It hardly seems fair that editors who get articles up to FA standard have to put up with having their articles vandalised when they recieve the honour of having the article on the main page. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection for an explanation. Ostensibly, we are the encyclopedia everyone can edit. If we then protect the first article that people see when they first enter Wikipedia, then it leaves something of a fallacy. That guideline is under discussion though. Woody (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for The World Ends with You now open

The peer review for The World Ends with You, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kariteh (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation Varsity Pre-FAC Peer Review

I intend to take Operation Varsity to FA-Level, but would like one more peer-review before going there, to see f there's anything major that needs to be corrected. I would appreciate any comments to focus more on content rather than MOS issues and the like. The peer review is here. Skinny87 (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know where the review page has gone Skinny87 but I've made a few minor changes. One thing - you should move all the references that you haven't actually used to a further reading section or remove them entirely. Buckshot06(prof) 23:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Tractable now open

The A-Class review for Operation Tractable is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 20:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine now open

The peer review for List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Image Exchange

It is proposed that the current image in the surrender of japan section on the page USS Missouri (BB-63) be exchanged for a new image. All interested editers are invited to comment at Talk:USS Missouri (BB-63)#Commodore Perry's flag. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I'm sorry to bother people with this issue again, but WP:UE at Talk:List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957#Request for comment has come up again. Simply put, should Soviet 'home guard' divisions of World War II be described as People's Militia(my interpretation) or Narodnoe Opolcheniye (user:Mrg3105), depending on how one interprets WP:UE. Further opinions would be welcome, as would guidance as to bring this issue to a close. Buckshot06(prof) 10:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To save people the trip....

A term derived from the medieval Rus like Oprichnik, the Narodnoe Opolcheniye is of the type known as "national troops" such as the Dnieper Cossacks, or German Landwehr, and although often translated as the "people's militia",, "home guard",, "people-in-arms", "national popular

army", "civilian reserves", "popular levy", "People's Volunteer Army", "national guard...the factory regiments", "bataillons ouvriers", "all men fit to bear arms from their 21st year", like "British Local Defence Volunteers", "a hastily mustered militia, the opolchenie", "a reserve force", "Opolchenie (a kind of "Landsturm")", "home guard militia", "volunteer militia", "territorial army", "temporary militias composed of mostly peasant 'volunteers'" its members never belonged to an organised military force, but were in all cases selectively accepted from a body of volunteers during a national emergency.

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I should note in response that 'People's Militia' is the usage of US historian David Glantz and appears to be the most used appellation in mainstream sources. A great amount of discussion is to be found on the talk page. Buckshot06(prof) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Glantz is not particular about the usage. The commonality of use is only reflected by the accompaniment of most of the translations by the transliteration, which Buckshot06 neglected to mention--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the finer points of useage: there's a very long debate of this on the article's talk page. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for SS Kroonland now open

The A-Class review for SS Kroonland is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Wandalstouring (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Adriatic campaign of the Napoleonic Wars now open

The peer review for Adriatic campaign of the Napoleonic Wars is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Candidate

Henry Clinton is currently a GAC. I was wondering if someone could help with the references. Geoff Plourde (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem I assume you mean specifically Henry Clinton (1730–1795)? David Underdown (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This article needs an MP infobox Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the article is no longer at GA Review as it has been failed. It can be renominated at a later date, but after consultation with another more experienced editor and after leaving more feedback, I felt as te reviewer that too much work remained for it to remain as a GA candidate. Skinny87 (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Hullo, Cross posting from WP:EAR - hoping some of you fine and talented editors can help with this, please. Van Resistance has become bogged down and the editors involved have become somewhat entrenched. Would anybody be able to take a look and suggest a path forward, please? TIA, --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Academic Study of Wikiproject Military History

Hello!

Please excuse me for this message as it does not pertain to a Military History related article. My name is Vanessa Larco and I am an undergraduate senior of computer science at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, GA. I am working on a study of Wikiprojects and I find the work you are all doing at Military History to be fascinating. I would like to talk to folks who are or have been involved, regardless of your perspective on the project. The purpose of the study is to better understand how Wikiprojects are organized and governed by learning from the people who have participated as editors, leaders, and coordinators.

I would greatly appreciate any volunteers to participate in my study by agreeing to be interviewed. If you agree, you'll be interviewed about your experiences working with Wikiproject Military History. The interview should not run longer than one hour. If you would like to volunteer and/or want more information on this study, please email me at vanessa[at]gatech.edu.

Thanks, VLarc (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

War or a civil war?

We are discussing whether Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435) or the Civil war in Lithuania (1431–1435) is a better name for one article. Comments appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Planned but Failed Airborne Operations

During my time here at wiki writing Operation Varsity, 13th Airborne Division and 17th Airborne Division, I've come across several airborne operations which were planned during World War II but which were never executed for various reasons. All three articles make mention of them, but the most notable are Operation Eclipse, a planned airborne assault on Berlin itself, and Operation Arena, a plan to replicate Wingate's Chindit operations in Burma by creating an airborne created 'stronghold' from which an assault on Berlin could be springboarded. There are other minor operations as well, such as Operation Choker II and Operation Effective. I have the sources to back up all the operations and could even get some primary documentation. Such an article could also encompass other time periods, if there were airborne operations in, say, Vietnam or other conflicts which were planned but were called off for whatever reason.

So, would it be possible for me to create such an article, and if so, what would be the best possible title for such an article? Skinny87 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit: That should be 'Cancelled' rather than 'Failed'. Skinny87 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

One initial thought Skinny is to add the material in question to First Allied Airborne Army if you can't figure out a good title. Another thought would be to create individual operation articles, as we've already got Category: Canceled military operations. Have you had a chance to chat to any of your lecturers about the structuring for World War II? Buckshot06(prof) 21:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that might be for the best, expanding First Allied Airborne Army to have all of its operations, including the cancelled ones. I doubt there's enough material to create individual articles. Skinny87 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Buckshot's comment, subject to the 'operations' passing the usual notability criteria, however. The planned but never executed Operation Kingfisher (which was to use the 1st Parachute Battalion (Australia) to rescue POWs in Borneo in 1945) would also make a good article, especially as several books have been written about it. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you limiting yourself to Allied only? I'd nominate Herkules in a heartbeat. And weren't there a couple of U.S. hops in the Pacific cancelled? And a couple of Japanese? Trekphiler (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So, with Kingfisher, Herkules, Arena, Eclipse, the airborne portion of Downfall, and other Axis/Allied airborne operations that were cancelled now coming up, would there be a consensus to create some article on all of these? Skinny87 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a hefty airbourne component to Seelöwe/Sealion, as I recall (Similar to the allied plans on D-day, I know there was some talk of the Nazis sending over paratroopers dressed as nuns or something silly. Though I forget if that was one of those crazy plans or propaganda or random fears). I think there is enough there for an article on cancelled airbourne landings. Would Market Garden get a look in as it was partly cancelled (They didn't send in the extra waves due to the weather etc)? Would be an interesting article regardless, though the issue is to avoid turning it into OR/Synthesis or an essay. Narson (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, avoiding OR and turning it into an essay would be a problem, but I think it can be avoided with careful planning and only adding the facts. Skinny87 (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(od)Skinny87, great initiative, but from my point of view, we've got hundreds of thousands of very small articles on wikipedia so far. Please consider initially just adding material to existing articles before starting new ones - and I, for one, would rather see individual articles than a general 'Cancelled airborne operations of WW2' that would be hard to categorise. Kingfisher and the German plan to assault Malta (think that's Herkules) are individually notable and worthy of articles when sufficient material can be gathered. Arena and Eclipse, I believe, would best first be placed within First Allied Airborne Army, and Sealion and Downfall airborne portions within those articles. I believe that would place them better within their context, anchor them better to non-OR sources, and avoid a large number of small stubby articles. This is just my two cents worth, of course - feel free to disagree. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 14:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that an all-encompassing article, such as Cancelled Allied operations of WWII would be a lot more useful than some stubs. These operations could then be expanded in sections and then summarised and forked out if they get too big. For me, that would be far more productive and better for the reader. Woody (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing merit in both approaches. Inclusion in main articles improves the coverage & gives the uninformed something they may not get elsewhere (WP or otherwise). A sep page allows for a "broad but shallow" look at similar ops, why they were proposed & cancelled, what they might have looked like (in planners' vision, if not informed speculation; I think of Macksey Dunnigan), why they were cancelled, so on, stuff only a specialist would care about. It occurs to me to do both. (Am I nuts?) Trekphiler (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC) (P.S. Short answer is not "yes". =] And Y, Malta was planned as Herkules.)

Perhaps we could work together on an article, something like Cancelled Airborne Operations of World War II which could build up each operation (properly sourced and without OR, of course) and then various operations could be forked out into their own articles when enough information comes to light. What do you think? Skinny87 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. A couple of books have been written on Op Kingfisher, so it will be possible to expand some of these into full articles down the track. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a warning, but I have been involved ina couple of AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early human rocket flight efforts, both of them used speculative web sites, and both of them included flights of fancy like plans for manned V2s to land men in America. Now in any large military organisation there will be a couple of juniors who are tasked with brainstorming ideas, 99.9% which will never get beyond the "is it possible stage" and not even as far a contingency planning. Now it may be possible to find a reliable source that mentions there were tentative plans to put a man into a V2 (don't know about V2s but there were definitely plans to put men into V1s), but that is a long way from a full blown operation. The danger for this proposed article is that these "could we do it?" papers are given the same weight as operations that were cancelled at the last moment because of adverse conditions. For example Operation Thursday went ahead, but the logs at "Piccadilly" could easily have lead to its cancellation as could a proper consideration of the reconnaissance photos at Arnhem have led to the last minute cancellation of Operation Market Garden). Plans which are quite advanced my be cancelled for strategic reasons eg Operation Pigstick (which may well have had an airborne component - don't know). So I think that before you start on any such article you consider placing in the lead a restriction that the planning for the "Cancelled Airborne Operations" must have got beyond preliminary contingency planning. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No argument. I'd only suggest a mention of less-developed (or sensible) plans, or completeness' sake, some (even most) of which could (will?) fall under description of the development of workable plans. JUBILEE, for instance, supervened several previous plans & would've had planning docs attached; ditto OVERLORD, likely HERKULES too.

In the (small minority) of cases, perhaps a section to mention ideas considered impractical, unneeded, or downright dumb. (And if you've seen the Great Panjandrum, posited for mine clearance, you'll know there had to be some.) Trekphiler (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Project Sylpheed now open

The peer review for Project Sylpheed, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kariteh (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Kudos: "the best military history website"

Forgive me if this has been mentioned here before, but I've recently come across this marvellous testimonial to the hard work of everyone here. Simon Fowler's 2007 Guide to Military History on the Internet (UK:Pen & Sword, ISBN 9781844156061) rates Wikipedia as "the best general resource" for military research (p. 7). Of the military pages, he says: "The results are largely accurate and generally free of bias" (he also suggests people join the wikiproject). When rating WP as the No. 1 military site (p. 201) he says "Wikipedia is often criticised for its inaccuracy and bias, but in my experience the military history articles are spot on." You've all "worked together to produce something of greater value than any one individual could by themselves" (p. 201). So well done! Gwinva (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Free delivery for today only :)

A toast!

• This calls for a drink! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Or several drinks, at that! Congratulations to everyone who's been a part of making this happen, in whatever way! :-) Kirill ^(prof) 00:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (Someone might want to mention this to the Signpost, incidentally.) Kirill ^(prof) 00:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Congratulations to all those editors who have made this project what it is now and for what it continues to be. I've dropped a note at the signpost by the way. Woody (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • We should also add this to our project history. I think its notbale enough for inclusion. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

        • Done. Kirill ^(prof) 16:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

        • So pleased I could make your day!  :) Since it appears it will be recorded for posterity, I now offer you the full quotes, below! (I wonder if anyone has joined the project, based on this recommendation?) Gwinva (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
          • With the effort we all put into getting the articles just right, for our personal satisfaction and that of fellow contributors, it's sometimes easy to forget that there's a world outside WP that just wants to read and use that accurate, well-presented information - this brings it back home in the best possible way. Cheers all, Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Nice to know that we are regarded as an accurate source of information. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Believe this calls for a HUZZAH!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Go us! The Land (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Booo-RAH!! I've said as much for a year or more. Now if we could just put to rest the "error rate" myth. And no, persistent vandalism isn't helping... Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade (rtd.) 01:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

---

On general resources:

“ To my mind, the best is Wikipedia, which is an online encyclopaedia compiled by its users. Anybody can add or amend almost all of the entries, which may seem a little odd, but the results are largely accurate and generally free of bias. If you spot anything that is wrong you can always change it. Most of the main topics in British military history are covered, and many of the more obscure ones as well. Take the entry for HMS Victory, for example: there is a history of Nelson's flagship, the admirals who have hoisted their flag on her, the dimensions of the ship, photographs and links to related entries, from shipworm to Admiral Sir James Burnell-Nugent, as well as a number of external websites. At the top of the entry you can read (and contribute) to the discussion on what needs to be changed or improved in the entry. If you want to write or review entries seriously, then it is worth joining the rather grandly named British Military History Taskforce [link] There are several other online encyclopaedias, but in general the entries are rather short and often not very satisfactory. They include [encarta] and [britannica]. ” — Simon Fowler, A Guide to Military History on the Internet (UK:Pen & Sword, ISBN 9781844156061), p. 7

In his "Top ten military sites":

“ "Top ten military sites": a selection of websites, which, in my opinion, every student of military history should bookmark. To merit inclusion they had to display scholarship and be genuinely useful to researchers... 1. Wikipedia: The internet has produced a large number of sites where scholars and enthusiasts from around the world work together to produce something of greater value than any one individual could by themselves. The best examples of this collaboration are wikis [...] which are websites that allow visitors to add, edit and change content. The most important of these is Wikipedia, which has some 1.7m entries in English (and hundreds of thousands of more in other languages as well). Wikipedia is often criticised for its inaccuracy and bias, but in my experience the military history articles are spot on. And in case you spot a mistake, you can always make a correction. ” — Simon Fowler, A Guide to Military History on the Internet (UK:Pen & Sword, ISBN 9781844156061), p. 201

---

This information could probably be referenced in the Wikipedia article itself. Actually, it might even qualify the project for its own article in wikipedia, which would almost certainly be a first. The project has more than earned the respect of everyone, included those of us who are probably vainly trying to copy its successes. Congratulations all around! John Carter (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Or in Reliability of Wikipedia? Gwinva (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Gwinva (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I hear often enough complains how bad wikipedia is and think even our project needs some big leaps forward. Let's don't be overenthusiastic. Just think about Che Guevara, one of our top 10 articles and still start class because of citations. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But "best" doesn't mean that we're perfect; just that everyone else is worse. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 16:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't want to be the first to pour cold water on the celebrations, but considering the range of articles not covered by the project, and the daily encounter with not only badly written, but misinformed and unreferenced articles I would say that Mr.Fowler either doesn't use Wikipedia much, used a very narrow range of articles, a small sample of articles, or just has much lower standards for quality then my own. I would be grateful if someone other then myself wrote Objective (military)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The author surely got nerves, calling Encarta and Britannica as "short and often not very satisfactory" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This weeks Signpost edition makes mention of the acheivement, if anyone is wants to read about it the article can be found here. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. It's worth pointing out that this is one of the leading Wikiprojects on a number of measures, such as number of FAs, so respect for the project isn't just limited to this author. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Large article intro structure

Is there a problem with adopting a bit of structure in the introduction of large articles that would seeks to summarise numerous campaigns/operations taking place during any given conflict? This would be achieved by including in the introduction: 1) the mandatory introductory sentence, 2) the sentences stating 2a) who was involved, 2b) why, 2c) when, 2d) where and 2e) how the events took place (dominant ways, methods and means), 3) what the objective/s was/were, and finally the 4) brief one paragraph abstract of the article, so at least four paragraphs. It seems to me that his would introduce a degree of consistency across the range of articles covering very large subjects in the Project--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:LEAD is an adequate enoguh guideline. The topics that we cover are so varied, I don't think a project wide guideline would be viable, or more to the point, neccessary. Woody (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

These points are are already covered at WP:MILMOS#STRUCTURE Nick Dowling (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes Woody and Nick, I know they are covered, but hey are not followed!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are asking for a guideline, and we have given it to you. If an article isn't following the guidelines then WP:SOFIXIT... (or mention it on the talkpage for minimal drama on high traffic pages). Woody (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but clearly in the case of large articles being bold on introductions without consensus is not the most prudent approach :) What I'm asking is perhaps better framed in a request for a Project-wide consensus on the approach to large article intro structuring and confirmation with the WP:MILMOS#STRUCTURE and WP:LEAD to aid in reducing conflicts and offering stability at least to the introduction sections that are important from the reader perspective. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it would be impossible to form such a consensus and then impose it on the highly varied articles which fall within this project's scope. It may also be inappropriate given that most of 'our' articles also fall within the scope of other projects. It would also be a waste of time given that there are already perfectly adequete guidelines and the common sense approach of discussing major changes to large and established articles which should guide any changes. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

T&A Top ten

As of about an hour ago, the current Tag & Assess Top Ten are:

• Dashiellx – 1450
• Jim Sweeney – 1400
• MChew – 1000
• Fattyjwoods – 1000
• Canglesea – 970
• Ejosse1 – 800
• Cam – 800
• Thedagomar – 670
• Borg Sphere – 350
• Harland1 – 300

Well done, everyone! As we still have 8,600 articles to tag by task force, all help is much appreciated. If you're interested, please sign up here. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest Top Ten

• Jim Sweeney (talk) – 1600
• Dashiellx (talk) – 1500
• Ejosse1 (talk) – 1000
• Fattyjwoods (talk) – 1000
• MChew (talk) – 1000
• Canglesea (talk) – 990
• Climie.ca (talk) – 910
• Thedagomar (talk) – 670
• Borg Sphere (talk) – 350
• Harland1 (talk) – 300

Keep up the good work! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

unit notability

I've heard some colloquial guidlines concerning the notability requirements for a military unit. The rule of thumb I've heard is that with a few exceptions, units below the size of a battalion are generally not notable enough for thier own article, and should be part of the parent unit's article. However, as far as I know, this isn't part of a written policy anywhere. Edit: I have found some discussion here but nothing was made policy nor added to the MOS.

I propose we discuss and eventually add the consensus to the WPMILHIST Style Guide. bahamut0013♠♣ 23:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How would you word such a proposal, and can you point to the rule of thumb (or is it one of those unwritten rules that just sort of understood)? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen it as advice from other editors, not as a policy, and can't for the life of me really remember whom. As to your former question, I would say we discuss the requirement a bit, then decide how to package it in the MOS. My first thought is that the "rule of thumb" makes sense as a general guidline. However, you have to consider that each nation's military is different in size... a large nation may have as many divisions as a smaller nation has companies. I would say that a battalion sized unit makes sense for automatic notability inclusion, while smaller units can be notable if they have some external noteriety. bahamut0013♠♣ 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how workable a purely size-based rule will be across the board. A battalion-size medieval unit, for example, might be quite notable; the various battalion-sized units of the Red Army in WWII, on the other hand, almost certainly aren't, since they had no independent identity beyond being subdivisions of larger units. Kirill ^(prof) 00:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Kirill's point is right, and wrong; individual rifle battalions within Soviet rifle regiments aren't really notable, but on the other hand, we already have pages for separate Soviet battalion-sized units, see Category:Soviet regiments, as the tank regiment was assigned around 20 tanks. On the more general point, I believe the basic organic tactical unit would be best - that would be Soviet rifle regiment, US infantry regiment during WW 2, US separate battalion during WW2, (eg 999th Armored Infantry Battalion etc) British infantry battalion in WW2 and now, and US battalion now. I'm well aware that doesn't help much though!! Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 06:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability of any given unit is not linked to its size, but to there being something notable about it. Not only were there notable battalions and companies/batteries, and not only in the Red Army during the Second World War, but elsewhere in English language and in other languages there are notable platoons in Military History. The reason regiments and larger units are almost instantaneously notable is because they are able to make a notable impact on combat operations somewhere at some time, hence the battle honours, however in the case of many countries, certainly Australia battalions and companies, and platoons have made a difference. I note that the British rifles were initially deployed by companies also--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is meant to be determined by the availability of reliable sources on the topic of the article. At present, WP:ORG is probably the most relevant guideline, and it states that A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. As such, only units which are considered particularly significant in whatever society they come from are likely to be notable. For instance, each of the Australian Army's infantry battalions has been the subject of multiple professionally produced books, but the same obviously isn't the case for the infantry battalions of the Red Army in WW2. I agree with Buckshot's view that size alone isn't sufficent to determine notability. In addition, I'd suggest that units which are permanent sub-units of another unit shouldn't be considered individually notable - for instance, the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment is highly notable, but it's constituant rifle and support companies aren't as they are permanently part of the battalion. (I think that this is a bit different to what I posted last time this topic came up, but I've sat in on zillions of AfDs since then and am older and wiser). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Nick. What I was trying to say above was 'organic sub-units' were not notable - 'organic' being the term for permanent subunits of another unit. Good idea also Nick to get out the relevant guideline. Buckshot06(prof) 22:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, so lets convert the WP:ORG to a military organisation notability guideline--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(od) I really don't see too much wrong with the general notability guidelines. Playing devil's advocate here, what's the point in having an article about a battalion simply because it's a battalion if you can't find anything to say about it? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the main reason I brought it up in the first place, because there really is no set policy on this. I'd orgionally thought that a battalion size-ed unit made a good guidline, but not a firm rule. I'm not sure about most other nations, but in the US military, battalions are the smallest units to hold a completely independant administrative and even historical identity: battalion commanders are the lowest convening authority, they hold thier own colors and staff, and are often the building blocks of larger formations. However, like many people have said, what works great for the US does not work well for other nations, most notably the aforementioned vast Soviet Army.

That would make me jump at the guideline of external coverage, however, I can think of one problem with that. Name any US military unit and I can probably find at least two articles written where the subject is notable simply for a deployment to the Middle East for the War on Terror. That may satisfy the letter, but not the spirit, of the notability guideline; a news article written solely about a non-notable unit's deployment doesn't really make that unit any more notable. I'd like to make a hypothetical example under a different context to help illustrate this: if a soldier, regardless of nationality, has no external coverage, he is not notable; but if he has been mentioned in several articles as having been in a battle without having had any significant impact upon them, does that make him notable enough for a biography article on Wikipedia?

I suppose my point is that we have to be more specific on whatever policy is written. bahamut0013♠♣ 19:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Roger: WP:ORG seems to work for us, and there's no point in creating yet another notability guideline simply for the sake of having a guideline. Battalions being notable in modern western militaries is a useful rule of thumb, but not all battalions are notable so this should be determined on an article-by-article basis. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the lack of mention of Polish partiticipation in the Battle in Berlin merit a tag? Please comment

At Talk:Battle_in_Berlin#Polish_troops. Currently we have editors reverting and seeking additional input.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Tractable now open

The peer review for Operation Tractable is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 03:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Auxiliaries (Roman military) now open

The A-Class review for Auxiliaries (Roman military) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Wandalstouring (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

1345

An admin moved the summary version of this article to 1345 (summary) from the main 1345 spot. This article is part of this project. Commentary is needed on whether summaries in year articles should be encouraged or not. Discussion is here. Wrad (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 2008 - Top Ten

As of 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC), the Top Ten taggers are:

• Jim Sweeney (talk) – 1900
• Dashiellx (talk) – 1600
• Ejosse1 (talk) – 1200
• Canglesea (talk) – 1000
• Fattyjwoods (talk) – 1000
• MChew (talk) – 1000
• Climie.ca (talk) – 910
• Thedagomar (talk) – 670
• Pkkphysicist (talk) – 600
• Borg Sphere (talk) – 400

All editors are welcome! See the sign up page for more information. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Partner peer review for Conan (2007 video game) now open

The peer review for Conan (2007 video game), an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The goal of this peer review is to collect critiques and suggestions for this article to be of Featured article quality. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thank you! Jappalang (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Time for re-appraisal?

As you may be aware, Wikipedia's assessment and review system is currently being overhauled. This has coincided with a lengthy discussion among the coordinators over ways in which the Milhist system can be improved. Now seems a very moment to throw open the coordinators' discussion for thoughts and contributions from the project as a whole.

Peer review (PR)

The main thought here was that PR is best for lower level articles and that they should be structured around a checklist, designed to prompt comment in specific areas. What points the checklist should cover, and which classes of article PR is most suitable for, have not yet been discussed.

A-Class reviews (ACR)

The general feeling was that ACR is better at attracting comment and criticism than PR. Several options have been discussed here. These include making the ACR process more pre-FAC specific, partly in response to FAC having become more demanding and an increasing tendency for Milhist articles to enter FAC prematurely. Focusing on FAC would enable ACR to respond better to changing tides/trends as well as addressing prose, source, and MoS issues more directly. Under this scheme, superficial supports ("Looks fine to me" or "Meets all the criteria", for example) would be strongly discouraged. A refinement of this would involve introducing a time delay between passing ACR and entering FAC, to ensure that ACR recommendations (copy-editing, for instance) are addressed. A radical option is to replace ACR with a general review (see "One Big Review" below).

Good article nominations (GAN)

Now might be a good time to revisit whether Milhist should support GAN to provide a more clearly defined line between B and A class. This didn't have much support since the GA reviews are not usually familiar with the material and because the quality of the GA reviews fluctuates on a case by case basis.

FAC

It was felt that FAC is becoming more demanding and it is becoming more difficult for Milhist articles to whistle through. The main areas were prose issues, source issues, and copy-editing. Refocussing ACR will probably tackle this problem. The chronic shortage of copy-editors can be partially addressed by reserving copy-editing capability at the Logistics dept for FAC.

One Big Review

As a radical alternative to separate PRs and ACRs, we could combine both into One Big Review. There is mixed support for this idea, since lower level articles generally have different needs to those going for FAC.

All comments are very welcome. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I fully understand the intentions here, but I don't see any fundamental problems with current review processes that warrant significant changes.

• My main concern would be tying ACR too closely to FAC. If it gets to the stage where an article is failed at ACR because it is not FAC ready, then I think that would be a mistake.
• ACR is however a great place to indicate what further work is needed to bring an article up to FAC standard. An example of this at work can be found in the ACR for Operation Brevity.
• Perhaps the ACR instructions can be updated to explicitly request comment on further work needed for FAC?
• I'm not sure that a mandatory(?) delay between successful ACR and FAC is viable, let alone enforceable, but I don't think that an ACR with unaddressed issues will be missed at FAC and will, I think, have the effect of ensuring that A-Class articles are brought up to the requisite standard before being presented at FAC. --FactotEm (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may throw myself into the discussion, the reason copyeditors are so scarse is because their efforts are often wasted. If you want there to be more willing copyeditors make sure they are copyediting only article that already pass major policies such as comprehensibilty, bias free and of course won't be significantly rewritten/expanded two weeks into the future. I would definetely be overwhelmed and feel my efforts are futile if I'm constantly copying editing subpar grade 8 research level articles which are going to be rewritten/expanded in the future anyway. 69.196.146.192 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't support merging the two. Peer review is immediatly after GA, to discover how the article can improve on its way to FA. A-class review is immediatly before FA, to see if the article is at its best and if it will pass, a "practice FAR" if you will. ACR can also function as a nice form of recognition for articles than probably won't make FA, for a multitude of reasons, including lack of sources for extra relevant information, or the writer simply being unable to write an article of such calibre.--Serviam (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's precisely this idea of "practice FAR" that concerns me. By all means use ACR as a stepping stone to FA, and as a way to identify what's needed to get there, but let's maintain a project-internal A-Class standard that encourages quality without having to brave what is becoming a very rigourous FAC process. --FactotEm (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)