Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 134

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

Looking for comments

In regards to recent edits made to the "List of Engagements" in the infoboxes for United States Armed Forces and Military history of the United States.

On the US Armed Forces page, an editor (only one I believe, though they seems to have a habit of editing while logged out) made a series of IP edits, starting with this, and ending with this.
They were reverted by another editor.
They then promptly reverted their changes back in, with the edit summary comment; reverting because a simple revert back to a disorganized list simply won't cut it.
I then reverted them with the comment; You've already been reverted. Go to talk page. per WP:BRD.
They then apparently signed in and immediately reverted again, with the comment; undoing the revert after signing in. My edit is to a superior version, so let's discuss if a change is not liked

On the Military history of the US page, the same IP editor made a series of edits, beginning with this (comment: altering list to make it less 20th century-centric) and ending with this.
They were again reverted by another editor, with the comment; Reverted unnecessary additions - keep it simple.
They immediately reverted their changes back in again, with the comment; added back a few of the wars that are featured prominently in the article, perhaps this is a better compromise.
I then reverted them with the comment: once reverted, go to talk page per WP:BRD.
Once again, they suddenly sign into their account and revert their edits back in again with the comment: reverting a second time, as BRD is inapplicable and NOT policy.

Now, there are the same (or similar) "lists of engagements" in the infoboxes on the pages for;

These are long-standing, well-written and widely accepted pages. There are likely similar lists on countless other related pages, such as for Flag-rank officers, armies, corps, navies, divisions, etc., etc. I happen to agree with the other reverting editor in that these changes to these two pages noted above are unnecessary, they make the lists look somewhat cluttered and crowded with all the dates added. There were also additional engagements/battles/wars added and it may be debatable whether they actually belong.

I also don't care for this editing style of adding in mass edits as an IP, then once they're reverted, suddenly signing in to revert them back, and continually reverting, to ram them in despite any objections, and refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page, especially when repeatedly requested to do so. Nor are the "my way is better" and "I don't need to discuss this" comments very collegial.

I would ask that the community review the list of engagements found in the infoboxes of these two pages, both before and after the mass changes, as well as reviewing the lists in all seven articles mentioned for comparison, to see if we can have a consensus as to which version is preferable. If anyone from the community, including any passing admins, would like to offer some advice or guidance to this user in regards to his editing style, that would be good too. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 05:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not looked at these articles before but I have to say that the IP change is an improvement in presentation, it really needed some <br> added to make sense, I dont have a view on the dates. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I still think the list of engagements in the United States Army infobox looks better, along with the other 4 articles, and that's the direction these two pages should take. - ^theWOLFchild 15:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

31 March Incident in 1909, Turkey related

As a result of this series of edits in March 2015, I think this page needs a copyedit by someone knowledgeable about the subject. I'm not sure about the neutrality of the edits, and the grammar is suspect. 220 of ^Borg 01:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

SFN question

Is there a way to combine a web source which has several urls rather than duplicating the source each time in the references section? I'm having a dash at Convoy HG 76 here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 and want to combine each U-boat net citation (if possible). I've tried the advice pages with the usual blank. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, you can't combine multiple pages from the same website. I tried playing around with how to do the citations here and had to break down and do individual reference entries. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah well. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is possible to combine multiple pages from the same website (see List of shipwrecks in 1800, for example). It depends how the website is set up in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

American patrol vessel

What class of patrol vessel is 414? Mjroots (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a 34 foot Dauntless class belonging to Coastal Riverine Squadron 10 of the Naval Reserve (Navy Times article) Gecko G (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Name

Which is right name for this, Nirbheek or Ordnance Factories Board Nirbheek. Officially, it called as Nirbheek, not Ordnance Factories Board Nirbheek. --Antan O 10:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears the Ordnance Factories Board manufacturers a firearm called the Nirbheek. Not sure what the issue is, can you clarify? - ^theWOLFchild 10:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. you've done a page move to remove the manufacturer's name from the firearm article title. While a brief glance at the List of firearms shows a majority of individual firearms articles with the manufacturer name in the title, there are also several without. This would appear to be a non-issue, and your page move should be ok. In the future I would recommend raising the issue on the article's talk page first. - ^theWOLFchild 10:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Decoy HMS Hermes

An IP editor just added a section to my FA-class article on HMS Hermes (95), mentioning that the merchantman SS Zealandic (1911) was converted to a decoy for Hermes and detailing how she came to grief. I've replaced the image originally used by the IP editor, but I'm at a bit of a loss for reliable sourcing on the decoy's sinking. Therefore I'm contemplating deleting everything but the fact that a decoy was made for Hermes for sourcing problems as the cites that the IP editor used are from websites that don't meet the RS criteria, IMO. The photo from the IWM confirms the decoy's existence, but says nothing about its fate. The incident that resulted in its loss is not mentioned in my go-to resource for this sort of thing, Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea, 1939–1945, and some preliminary poking around hasn't yielded anything that I'd consider RS.

So my first question is it worth keeping the bit about the decoy's fate in the article at all? If so, does anyone know of any useful sources that cover the incident?

It's probably worthwhile to keep it - the Germans thought they had actually sunk Hermes, which is interesting, I think. As for sources, this should work. Parsecboy (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a brief description on the decoy ship in HMS Hermes (95) is enough. The details on the decoy and its fate better fit at SS Zealandic (1911), imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment at Cold War

Hello everyone. I have opened a request for comment at Talk:Cold War, as to adding an infobox to the article. If you are interested, then please participate. Mitchumch (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Merger

A formal request has been received to merge articles: American Forces Press Service into DoD News Channel; dated November 2015. Project members are asked to add comments >>>here<<<. Thanks, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France Breton redoubt question

Does anyone remember an article in the Battle of France series mentioning the Breton Redoubt and that Spears wrote that he gave the idea to Churchill, who later thought it was his own? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This? - ^theWOLFchild 13:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks babe.Keith-264 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, sweetie. - ^theWOLFchild 15:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Invasion of Normandy

A new editor changed the first paragraph of the lead of Invasion of Normandy. I reverted the edit, restored it then re-wrote it. I think the version before the edits tried to say too much at once. Please review. Thanks, Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"The Invasion of Normandy was the invasion of Normandy by..." - sounds clunky, imho. - ^theWOLFchild 23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... There's no pride of authorship to defeat. Go for it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Try that. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Slight copyedit and correction made. - ^theWOLFchild 14:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Very nice.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't start a sentence with "In addition...." Keith-264 (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I made an attempt at a new lead. WP:BOLDTITLE gives good guidance here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Naming dispute

Please see Talk:HMS Ajax (S125). Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 15:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason the article even needs to exist? If this sub had been ordered or was being constructed, I'd agree with it, but a proposed - and not even ordered - vessel (for which a much more suitable class article exists already), with very little article content, seems unnecessary. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest adding your remarks to that article's talk page under a new section. Meanwhile, if you have anything to add to the naming discussion, please do, as this dispute is affecting other established articles, such as Astute-class submarine and Future of the Royal Navy. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree Steve. Article shouldn't exist. If there's a naming dispute over a ship that hasn't been ordered yet, then delete the page and use both names as redirects. Llammakey (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the table entry at Astute-class submarine, the order for the Ajax has been placed and "Confirmed, long-lead items ordered, steel cut", so it seems we're past the point of debating the article's existence. Anyways, I would think this would be discussion for the article talk page. If you have any comments to contribute to the naming dispute, that would be appreciated. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 19:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Dunno that we're past discussing the page's existence. Long-standing practice is to wait until the hull is ordered, at very least. How many of the second half-dozen of Darings ever saw the light of day? Parsecboy (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Humour - I believe you all mean the HMS Francis (S125)^[FBDB] ;p Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's entirely appropriate to question the validity of keeping the article before getting bogged down in what it should be called. The name of the article is moot if the article should just be deleted. Here seems just as good a place to query that and get some open opinions as anywhere else. That is, of course, exactly the reason you've posted on this page yourself. It's just that the scope has become a bit wider. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"That is, of course, exactly the reason you've posted on this page yourself" - Actually, no... the reason I posted here was to direct people's attention to the issue on that page, in hope they would go to that page and comment there on it. That said, if you think the page should be deleted, then start an AfD on it. Doesn't matter to me either way. Deleting the page is another way to put a stop to the naming nonsense. - ^theWOLFchild 08:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Or we could discuss the matter first. Which is what we're doing. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for Gordon Gollob needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Gordon Gollob; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for Theodore Komnenos Doukas needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Theodore Komnenos Doukas; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Expert needed at Fog of war

WPVG is cleaning up its expert-needed queue and this one is tagged for both our projects but requests someone with military history experience. Could someone please look at Fog of war and either repair the necessary areas or remove the tag? czar 21:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about military units

I'm working on an upgrade for the 2nd West Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment—doing general cleanup now at User:TwoScars/sandbox5. What is the standard procedure for identifying American Civil War units? For example: Third Division or 3rd Division? 2nd Brigade or Second Brigade? Thanks in advance for any help. I may have something ready for peer review in a few weeks. I have no idea if I am writing too much or too little. TwoScars (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Winkle" Brown

The article on Eric "Winkle" Brown was briefly on the Main Page in the Recent Deaths section but it has been pulled due to referencing issues. Assistance in fixing these is sought please. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There has been a proposal to merge 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger) with 75th Ranger Regiment (United States). Also mentioned is the United States Army Rangers page as a factor. The proposal is on the latter, but having two articles is also questioned on the former.

See: Talk:75th Ranger Regiment (United_States). - ^theWOLFchild 11:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

East Africa 1939-1941

Are there no articles about naval operations or am I looking in the wrong place? Keith-264 (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Red Sea Flotilla has a bit of naval warfare. It also links to Attack on Convoy BN 7. Dead Mary (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've found those, it seems to need an article.Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD! - ^theWOLFchild 18:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to finish off the Somme articles before 1 July and I'm procrastinating like mad. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, snap to it then! What are we paying you for? Oh wait... - ^theWOLFchild 11:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What were the South Africans up to during that period? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

They were waiting for me to look at the OH that's online at Hyperwar and get on with it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

HMS Cornwall 1941

Action of 8 May 1941 Did it carry Walrus spotter aircraft? Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. See Forcyzk, Robert; Palmer, Ian (2010). German Commerce Raider vs British Cruiser: The Atlantic & The Pacific 1941. Osprey. p. 58. ISBN 978-1846039188. Preview available on Google Books. Nthep (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Keith-264 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox military person

Please see Talk:Audie Murphy#Purple_Heart. The comment there is referring to how the Purple Heart and Presidential Unit Citation are listed in the infobox. Article content seems to be OK on this. Can anyone suggest a better way of listing these medals in the infobox? — Maile (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The infobox makes no mention of bravery. That section is titled 'Awards'. I see no issue here for discussion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Women in the Civil War" edit-a-thon at NARA

Hi everyone! Wikimedia DC and the National Archives will be holding a "Women in the Civil War" edit-a-thon next week, and we're looking for help with putting together a list of articles for attendees to edit. If you know of any articles that (a) would fit with the topic and (b) could be improved by a group of not-very-experienced editors, please add them to the list here.

If anyone is in the area and would like to attend the event—or participate online—that would also be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Captain Ralph.E. Goranson

Ralph was captain of ~~able~~ charlie company of 2nd rangers. He and his company were first to land on normandy at H hours. His history is depicted notably under Popular film Saving private ryan as captain miller. We need to work on this article. Dr meetsingh Talk 07:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Before you start an article on him, please check that there are sufficient sources covering his life to meet the relevant notability policy, WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, i have gone through various notabilty guidelines and found the article on captain Goranson is possible in wikipedia.

1. He has recieved Distinguished Service Cross (United States) which is 2nd highest decoration and purple heart recipient .

2. He has comanded charlie company of 2nd rangers. His company along with other companies of rangers were first to land on Normandy during H-hours. Under his command rangers were able to make to the cliffs. Notability of the events can be searched on google.

3. His heroism is depicted under American film saving private ryan as captain miller. So we must take a initiative to create this article. Dr meetsingh Talk 12:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he meets WP:SOLDIER. He did not receive the DCS multiple times; his command topped out at company level; "Private Ryan" is a fictional character based loosely on Frederick "Fritz" Niland. If memory serves, Fritz Niland was never separated from his company. The section mentioning Goranson in Saving Private Ryan is flagged as original research. Google results equating Miller and Goranson seem to be mostly blogs/non-edited items.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on the above, I agree. Dr meetsingh, please read WP:BIO: notability is determined by the availability of independent reliable sources on individuals and the depth of coverage they provide on them. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur - as far as I can tell, Goranson is mentioned fairly frequently in books on the Normandy invasion, but generally without any other details. WP:BIO1E seems to apply here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Northern Ireland, 1968–98 a colonial conflict?

See discussion at Template talk:British colonial campaigns. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nodegoat's Geography of Violence map

May be of interest, from BBC News Magazine an article on Dutch company Nodegoat's Geography of Violence map: The map trying to record every battle ever fought. It uses data from Wikipedia (with some fine-tuning still needed for its algorithm, clearly). The site itself is at http://battles.nodegoat.net/viewer.p/23/385/scenario/1/geo/fullscreen. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

East African Campaign (World War II)

East African Campaign (World War II) I've been working my way through the sections to make them succinct and then expand the linked articles but the sources I have are sketchy about Italian details and tend to leave the rightful owners of East Africa as anonymous extras. Can anyone suggest sources that don't? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Michela Wrong's book on Eritrea I Didn't Do it For You isn't about World War II, but has some good details on the Italian colonial regime and fighting there with a focus on how it affected Eritreans. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Successor to the UK Trident system - name/split?

There's been a bit of warring over the name of Successor to the UK Trident system. My view is that the problem stems from the fact that it's really two articles that were set up as one because at the time it wasn't known how the UK's deterrent would look in future. Since the last election, it seems near-certain that the UK will put existing Trident missiles in 4 submarines of a new class, that goes by the working name of the Successor-class submarine. Thus I think the time has come to do the same as happened with the previous generation of CASD, split out the politics from the ship-class article like Trident nuclear programme and Vanguard-class submarine. For me the only question is whether there's enough material on the politics to justify a new politics article or whether it can just be merged in to Trident nuclear programme. I've a mild preference for merging politics rather than standalone, but I'm not really bothered either way. Can we have some more eyes over at Talk:Successor_to_the_UK_Trident_system#Requested_move_1_March_2016? The article itself could always use some work given that it's such a political hot potato at the moment, views have quadrupled in recent months.Le Deluge (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment needed on Draft at AfC

We have a draft at AfC that needs to be interpreted for notability: Draft:Kenneth W. Hunzeker. I would appreciate any help you can give because we don't appear to have any experts in this area that are reviewing at this time. Thank you, LaMona (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@LaMona: G'day, thanks for posting this. I made a few tweaks, but nothing significant. As a corps commander with the rank of lieutenant general, I'd say that the subject is most probably notable per WP:MILPEOPLE (specifically points 3 and 6), although the article still needs a bit of work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the subject is notable, but the article reads a bit like a corporate bio. The editor who created it has disclosed that they're an employee of the firm which now employs Mr Hunzeker. I don't fancy volunteering my time to assist with this paid editor's work promoting their colleague/boss. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think he meets the criteria for notability: esp "Deputy Commander of all U.S. forces in Iraq" 2007-10 -- a highly important operation. from Wiki criteria:

YES: Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer

YES Played an important role in a significant military event; [US war in Iraq]Rjensen (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all! Now that I know it meets notability, I will do my AfC duty and try to get it into better shape before pushing it out to main space. Yes, assisting paid editors is one of the pains of AfC, and they are legion (in keeping with the military theme). LaMona (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

List of X-planes and images

Should the List of X-planes include images? I have started a discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideology of the SS

This article has proved to be a challenge and very contentious. Although it originally passed GA review back in October, 2015, it has needed some further work since that time. Part of the problem were the contributions of an editor who is now topic blocked. Much of that was dealt with since that time and further tweaks were being done with the involvement of the GA reviewer. Now, the article for the most part is being "nuked" by several editors. It has also been mentioned on the talk page that the article should be deleted at this point. I would ask that several editors from this section have a look at the article with a critical but objective eye. If kept, the goal being for objective presentation with good RS cites; from a NPOV point-of-view. Kierzek (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Any talk of deletion is silly. If anything, simply restore it back to the point when it was given GA status. This would wash any and all questionable edits by the now topic-banned editor, and any others, and simply leave behind a Good Article. - ^theWOLFchild 13:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not that easy because the editor in question was topic banned after this article was GA passed; and I don't believe it should go back to that point. The fact is, it needed some further work. If it was going to be "restored" to a point, it should be yesterday; with tweaks being done from that point in time. If kept, the article will need reassessment as to its GA status after the dust has settled. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was under the impression that it reached GA, then all the problems came afterward. I guess I should've taken a closer look. - ^theWOLFchild 18:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a discussion ongoing about this at Talk:Ideology of the SS#Problematic content. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It has been listed at: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Given its currently unstable, it should be de-listed. Kierzek (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's why it was listed there, no? Given the way it's going over there, it looks like it well on it's way to being de-listed anytime now. - ^theWOLFchild 04:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just stating my opinion on the matter herein as I did on the linked GA reassessment page. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Luftwaffe moved

A "user" has unilaterally moved Luftwaffe to Luftwaffe (1935–1946) without discussion, and left behind a two-item DAB page. The previous title was used by consensus, so do we need to have a new discussion to restore it, or can an admin just revert the moves? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to revert. There was no attempt whatsover to discuss such a drastic change Irondome (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

They also moved German Air Force to Luftwaffe (modern). I reverted it, but he moved it right back. Admin intervention is necessary now. - BilCat (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

These moves are completely inappropriate. Major changes such as this should be proposed on the article talk page beforehand to seek consensus. An admin should restore these immediately, and the "user" should be given some counseling. - ^theWOLFchild 04:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've moved protected the pages for the next month, hopefully the matter will resolve itself amicably now. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This is getting strange. The user is now adding unexplained POV and Neutrality headers to the top of the German Air Force article, with no explanation on talk page for what his/her issues are. - BilCat (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

They have had a similar fetish about the German army according to user history. They seem to dispute that the Nazi era Luftwaffe & Heer ended in 1945, they seem to have a thing about 1946 instead. There is a very legalistic grey area that exists between August 45- October 46, but there is no attempt by user to discuss their grievance on relevant T/P either. It's getting silly. Irondome (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Allied Control Council decision was seemingly August 26, 1946. I've yanked the following text from Talk:German Army#Wehrmacht: "There is nothing controversial about the date 1946. For reliable sources, see Large, Germans to the Front (1996); Rolf-Dieter Müller et al., Die Wehrmacht: Mythos und Realität (2012); Diehl, The Thanks of the Fatherland (1993); Lockenour, Soldiers As Citizens (2001); Klein, "The Myth...", Baltic Defence Review (2001); and try for numerous sources, mainly but not only in German." The German Army existed for months after May 8, 1945; a million-man+ organisation does not wink out of existence with a surrender. There should probably be redirects with the (1935-46) brackets, but definitely this should all be discussed on the talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks for retrieving that material for the basis of any discussion that may develop. But that is the problem. The user is templating other user's T/P's etc, with no attempt to discuss this. Also an odd claim of POV is being made. Until the user starts dialogue, nothing really can be done. Irondome (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Apart from whacking him hard after a certain interval (feel free to ask me to consider). I have copied in an earlier discussion at History of the Luftwaffe 33-45 to Talk:Wehrmacht#Actual and legal dissolution of the Wehrmacht as a resource in a more logical place should that be of help. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Considser yourself asked. This guy is outta control and needs a cold bucket of block-water dumped on him. I reverted one of his silly page moves and politely asked him to propose the move on the talk page. For that he actually templated me for "disruptive editing" (level 2). (Someone else already deleted the warning for me.) He should prove that he's read wp:consensus before being permitted to edit further. - ^theWOLFchild 22:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Tadeusz Nowak for 48 hours, and left a message at his talkpage inviting him to come here and explain after that period. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Research help up for deletion

Template:Research help, which is the midst of a pilot we approved, is now up for deletion. (volunteer edit) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

My Respects

Hello all parcipitants,

I stumbled upon This WikiProject due to 2 recent RFA's. I want to take the time to commend each and one of you as great contributors of one of Wikipedia's finest section. Even before I joined Wikipedia, I was simply amazed at the depth and breadth the articles have come to be. The effort is superb and outstanding. The knowledge helped me in a few courses back in University, sources i mean. For that, I thank all of you.

Sincerely,

Winterysteppe (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Anthony Hidden, QC

Sir Anthony Hidden , QC has died. Seems to me that he is notable enough to have an article. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As a High Court Judge and a knight he certainly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC (US-Iran recent naval incident)

There's a RFC here. Mhhossein (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Orders of battle

Nafziger, G. (2011). Nafziger Orders of Battle Collection: Finding Aid (online ed.). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combined Arms Research Library (U.S. Army Command and General Staff College). OCLC 528648446. Retrieved 10 March 2016.

This might come in handy.Keith-264 (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's an excellent resource. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

For the German OB use Mitcham's Hitlers Legions, he cites the the US Army official histories (the Green Books) as well as German sources. Mitcham held a doctorate and was an academic. The German OB on Wikipedia needs to be cleaned up, Mitcham's Hitlers Legions should be the roadmap.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not perfect, I've found one useful entry which turned out to have a different item under the label and some have typos, so I think a certain caution is necessary. Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Keith-264. Anyway Mitcham cites his sources, the German work of Tessin, Keilig and Muller-Hildebrand is the bible but way to expensive, I have no access to these sources at the NY Public Library. I do own the Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht which is cited by Mitcham--Woogie10w (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Try niehorster.org too. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I would use Mitcham and cross check with niehorster and Feldgrau. If there are differences then we need to check why they don't agree. Mitcham is real cheap on the internet, there is no excuse not to use him.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at East Africa 1940–1941 so that doesn't really apply to me but I see what you mean. Keith-264 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Western Desert Campaign

There have been a lot of mobile edits on these pages in the last few days, they aren't our POV-pusher making a come-back are they? Keith-264 (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the Commando Supremo website fan Keith? The POV Italian pusher. Irondome (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just noticed that several new editors have been active the last few days and wondered if it fit his modus operandi. I've been busy with other things so haven't had the time to delve further. Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No rewriting of history re: Italian participation noticable. As far as I can see this IP has a thing about flags..Simon Irondome (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Good, thanks for taking a look. Keith-264 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Just seen this. Keith-264 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Good spot! The I.P active in the WDC article is beginning 114.. dunno about I.P ranges. As I say, i'm seeing flag - related edits in the present activity. No evident Italian fixation. SPI do you think? Irondome (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI? As it happens me and another editor have been removing the flags from the personalities section as superfluous, considering that there are flags in the box above and the Icons view here. Keith-264 (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI. Sock Puppet Investigation. Just to clarify if the flag character is a banned user. Irondome (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems like another coincidence?Keith-264 (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

FAC

Hi, folks. Gudovac massacre has been up for FAC for quite a few weeks now and hasn't gotten much feedback. I'd really appreciate it if some of our contributors would take a look at the article and make recommendations on how it could be further improved. The nomination page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gudovac massacre/archive1. Thanks in advance. 23 editor (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Marshall E. Cusic Jr.

Is this individual notable? czar 10:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:SOLDIER tells us "yes" because he's a flag officer; having said that, I also think the article's a little thin.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gaarmyvet, is WP:SOLDIER officially recognized or used at AfD? Or is it just an indicator that sources should exist? Do you know where I could find sufficient sources to get this one past the general notability guideline? czar 18:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER is a valid link to a portion of the notability policy page. There are a bunch of pages in Google, including one for his promotion to rear admiral. On a quick look, he may also be notable as a physician.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

All right, thanks. If anyone else has feedback, please {{ping}} me.

czar 22:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Ribbon image showing up as solid yellow below a certain size

Is anyone else noticing that any example of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Ribbon turns solid yellow when displayed below a certain size? OR is it just something with my system? I've been noticing it for over a month now. Gecko G (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Medals again

I have tried to fix up the medals in the article on Alan Shepard, based on this picture of him wearing his ribbons. Can someone help me out here? In particular, what is the ribbon on the right in the second row? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Antarctica Service Medal...? - ^theWOLFchild 05:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on What I'm seeing he has in the picture, I make his awards to be as follows from top to bottom, in order of appearance:

Distinguished Service Medal, Presidential Unit Citation, Joint Service Commendation Medal
Asia Pacific Medal w/3? service stars, American Theatre Campaign Medal, American Defense Medal,
European, Africa, Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, World War II Victory Medal
National Defense Service Medal, Korea Service Medal, United Nations Medal
Philippine Defense Medal, Philippine Liberation Medal, ???

Not sure if that helps though, and do take these with a grain of salt - some may be close but not quite. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on the tables at Awards and decorations of the United States Armed Forces, I can't seem to find another medal that looks like the one you're looking for. The Antarctic one looks like the closest match. But doing a cursory search, I didn't see that Shepard was awarded that one. Does anyone know if he had anything to do with Antarctica during his career? Anyway, the rest of the awards in that photo appear to be as follows;

Distinguished Service Medal • Distinguished Flying Cross (United States)
NASA Distinguished Service Medal • Presidential Unit Citation • Antarctica Service Medal (?)
Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal† (4 stars) • American Campaign Medal† • American Defense Service Medal†
European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal† • World War II Victory Medal† • Navy Occupation Service Medal
National Defense Service Medal • Korean Service Medal† • United Nations Korea Medal‡↔
Philippine Defense Medal‡↔♦ • Philippine Liberation Medal‡ (2 stars) • Navy Rifle Marksmanship Ribbon

notes

† - obsolete
‡ - foreign & int'l
↔ - wrong order?
♦ - inverted?

Whatever medal that is, it's not currently listed on his page. I've noted the ones that are listed as 'obsolete' or as 'foreign & international'. I'm not sure if his United Nations Korea Medal and Philippine Defense Medal are in the right order and his Philippine Defense Medal seems to be inverted. - ^theWOLFchild 13:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - This has intrigued me. I also checked Awards and decorations of the United States government along with the various medal templates, but didn't find anything. I spent some time hunting around the internet trying to find any info linking Shepard with Antarctica, I also tried finding other medals with the same color scheme, but still no luck. One thing however; I think this photo was originally black & white, so I'm wondering if when it was colored, was the medal done incorrectly? Anyway, I guess I'll keep hunting. - ^theWOLFchild 17:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There are actually four campaign stars on the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal (Leyte, Luzon, Western Pacific, Ryukyus). On the other hand, I have no idea how the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal was earned. Nor the Presidential Unit Citation; some sources say it was earned on Cogswell, but the Navy records do not indicate that ship earned such a citation. The medal that should be in the second row spot is the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, which records show he was awarded in 1969. There was a long list of awards that year in the wake of the moon landing. (Of course in 2015, with no US space program to speak of and no missions flow, far less awards. (Just kidding.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Per this page, Shepard earned 2 NASA DSMs. I think the image shows that. Doesn't answer the question though. ☺ user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 22:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he received one in 1961, and a second in 1971. I think the star indicates that. As he was promoted to rear admiral in 1971, and the photograph seems to be of that occasion, he would not have yet received it at the time the photograph was taken. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Perhaps it wasn't his uniform, just something quickly cobbled together by someone else for the photo. That could explain some of the inconsistencies; the unexplained and/or missing medals, medals in the wrong order, another one upside-down, etc. Did you have any thoughts on the Antarctica one? - ^theWOLFchild 12:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I can show that Shepard was in VF-193, that VF-193 was onboard the USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31), and that the Richard was awarded a PUC. I can't yet put them all together at one time, and I would think VF-193 would not be entitled to share the award of the Richard, but maybe so. Here is another image of Shepard's awards. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 15:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That is just a mirror site, basically a copy of his article from here on WP. - ^theWOLFchild 16:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

He was in VF-193, but not on Bon Homme Richard; he served on Oriskany. But that ribbon is definitely the PUC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Found it!!!

I found it on eBay. The mysterious Dark Blue/Blue/Sky-Blue/Light Blue/White/Light Blue/Sky-Blue/Blue/Dark Blue medal is the NASA Distinguished Service Medal. Apparently, only three of these were issued (to Crowley, Shepard and Gus Grissom) before they changed to the new type. . Shepard wore both the old type and the new. Anybody know someone who can create a ribbon image for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice job! - ^theWOLFchild 22:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Anybody know someone who can create a ribbon image for me? - there are ribbon rack makers online. Just Google it. You make a customized one, save it and then upload here. Viola! - ^theWOLFchild 05:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Also the American Campaign Medal & American Defense Service Medal are in the wrong order (the ADSM predates the ACM). As for the order of the UN medal vs the Philippine medals, I've never seen where the US Navy ranks their respective precedence, I can only assume it's the same as in the Marine Corps. Gecko G (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't entirely sure about the precedence, (hence the ? marks), but that Philippine medal is inverted, I'm pretty sure about that. - ^theWOLFchild 00:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Military history to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History//FA-Class military history articles/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this - it's very interesting. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man: Is this a different list from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages? If not, then I imagine we'll want to move the list to that title. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man: Really interesting! Is the double slash ( // ) intentional though? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the list over to the old location (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages) and updated the bot's configuration to use that for future updates. Hopefully that didn't break anything; I suppose we'll find out next month. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Input please...

On the talk page for "Equipment of the United States Armed Forces", I have posted a question addressing most if not all firearms articles. Specifically, what 'wars' to list and not list in the infobox. Looking for a centralized discussion there. See Talk:Equipment of the United States Armed Forces#"Wars" (infobox). Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 12:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 29, 2016

This one became a Featured Article in 2008, and the nominator doesn't appear to be around any more. It might well need some attention before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Attack on Convoy AN 14

Attack on Convoy AN 14 It's labelled AN 14, BN 14 and BN 7 in the text (could a naval war aficionado take a look please). Keith-264 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, although I don't think it really required a naval war aficionado to check the sources and correct what (I assume were) typos. However, since I was checking I've amended some of the dubious claims in other parts of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Who but an aficionado would know what were typos and what not? ;o)) Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland 1968–98, a colonial conflict? More views needed please

Gerrynobody and I are having real trouble coming to agreement at Template talk:British colonial campaigns and I would appreciate a third party or two adding their voices to the debate to help Gerry and me sort this out. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin

All comments would be highly appreciated here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin/archive2. Thank you for your time. Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Knowledgeable eyes requested at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture

Could someone familiar with USMC take a look at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in today's or tomorrow's featured picture? I don't know enough about it to comment wisely, and even if I did I'm about to log off. I suspect the OP has a point, and suggestions on the caption might be in order. Thanks, --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with draft review of WWII Navy Ace

Looking for any criticism of a draft I've been working on for Cecil E. Harris, the US Navy's second-highest-scoring ace of WWII.

Thanks, --Finktron (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Egyptian Armed Forces

I've attempted some cleanup of this article, which had pictures of U.S. military personnel captioned as Egyptian border guards, disorganised sections (an overview halfway down the page, with huge slabs of history, after the separate history section), and barely coherent text, plus overdetailed descriptions for the top-level article, and have been reverted by enthusiastic but not-brilliantly competent at English editor @RabeaMalah:. I've reversed his revert to the untidy state the article was in, but some more eyes on this would be much appreciated. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, considering he's made 625 edits to that page in just the past few months, I'd say there could be a serious WP:OWNership issue here. - ^theWOLFchild 00:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:, I beg you, tell him to keep away, or else I will do everything restored.--RabeaMalah (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's actually in your best interest to not restore all that content again (or even threaten to do so), or you may very well find yourself blocked from editing. Buckshot06 is both an experienced editor and admin, and knows what he's doing, which in this is case improving that article per Wikipedia's standards. Now, I've added a 'welcome' template to your talk page. You should read through the various links there to better learn your way around this project. If language is a barrier, there are Wikipedia projects in other languages you could contribute to, such as Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia. If you wish to continue work here, you will need to learn to discuss issues on article talk pages, and work to resolve differences. - ^theWOLFchild 18:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Australian Defence Headquarters, North Eastern Area

In the article for a heritage-listed building Commonwealth Offices, Townsville at 42 Sturt Street, the last two paragraphs of the history section talk about the building being used in WW2 as "Australian Defence Headquarters, North Eastern Area" and then after the war as being used as "RAAF's Recruiting Offices and Air Training Corps Headquarters". I want to create some links but military history is not my strength. Should "Australian Defence Headquarters, North Eastern Area" be linked to North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF) (which mentions both Townsville and Sturt Street in different parts of the article)? Thanks Kerry (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

RAAF North-Eastern Area Headquarters was housed in Sturt St, Townsville, from at least 1949, but the source doesn't give the street number. It could well be the same building, but as far as linking goes I'm not sure that an RAAF area HQ should be considered synonymous with an "Australian Defence" area HQ (though they could've been co-located). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just checked our orbat article for the Australian Army in the Second World War, and there does not appear to be any "Australian Defence Headquarters, NE Area." British Commonwealth armies maintained 'Area Combined Headquarters' with Air Forces and sometimes navies for home defence during World War II, and given the location on Sturt Street, it is my guess that the reference in the civilian government source (which I believe is likely a garbled reference in some way) is to some sort of combined HQ incorporating RAAF HQ NE Area. But it's up to our Australian experts to find a proper corroborating source. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I might be mistaken, but I don't think that the Australian military had combined headquarters during World War 2, with the services each having separate chains of command. I suspect that the building here only housed the RAAF regional HQ, and not a combined "defence" headquarters. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

On a similar note, I've just nominated for deletion Australian Air Defence Areas and would welcome any comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Normandy campaign disruptive editor

Pls observe Operation Jupiter (1944), Operation Charnwood, Battle for Caen etc for refusal to stop reverting and discuss on talk pages. Keith-264 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This IP 120.16.209.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now passsed 3RR and is edit warring, ignoring requests to take to Talk page of various pages. David J Johnson (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If the user does not stop, then give warning(s) for disruptive editing, such as Template:Uw-disruptive2 or Template:Uw-disruptive3, and the user will probably get a break from editting. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Reported for edit warring. David J Johnson (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted, let me know if s/he resumes. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I did attempt to get the editor to at least engage in discussion, which clearly they were not willing to do. If, for some reason, we needed to build consensus on the subject, off my own shelf: Terry Copp uses the term "Anglo-Canadian" in reference to British-Canadian forces and operations, as does Charles Perry Stacey. On the other hand, I do not note Brian Reid doing so in at least No Holding Back. That is all the Canadians, I believe, I have on hand access too.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I use it as a synonym and since a lot of my Great War sources are pre-1945 it appears in descriptions of proto-Commonwealth operations too. I thought that as a matter of usage, the editor had a point to discuss but the means chosen were as peremptory as the complaint. Same thing happened when I described the 36th Division troops as Irish. Lloyd George has a lot to answer for.Keith-264 (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be worthwhile to look at what contemporary sources use. Terminology in the historiography may change, and, say, 1960-1980s sources may differ from 1990-2010 ones.

I see this a lot with the wiki articles on the Eastern Front: lots of uses of "Russians", "Soviets", "Russian Front", even links such as "Russian tanks", etc. See this and this example, among many. I go by what David Glantz uses: the Read Army, Soviet forces, etc.

So it could be that "Anglo-Canadian" is a bit dated and/or colloquial. May be worth a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Anglo-Canadian" is a very poor term to use, since in Canada, it will be confused for "Anglo Canadian"/"Anglo-Canadian" (anglophone Canadian), an English-speaking Canadian (or groups of Canadian English speakers, such as English speaking military units). -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

As opposed to "Francophone-Canadians", or French-Canadians, (mainly from Quebec). You do have a point there, it could lead to confusion. Also, as "Anglo" primarily denotes "England", it could be construed to be exclusive of the Scottish, Irish and Welsh, so there's that as well. Perhaps it would be best to find another, more suitable term. Why not "British-Canadian"...? - ^theWOLFchild 06:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Anglo-Canadian can be used as a term of disparagement in some regions of Quebec (usually just shortened to les Anglos) and usually mixed with some sort of cursing. I would suggest finding alternative usage. Also even though you're referring to a joint British-Canadian force, there were very few pure French units to that point in Canadian military history, so the vast majority of Canadian army units would have had mixed personnel between French and English and referring to Canadian units even haphazardly as just Anglophone is not a road that should be travelled. Llammakey (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's a term, synonym and figure of speech. It's also common usage in RS, which is what really matters. I think we need a little more confidence in the literacy of our readers. Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You've never met a French-Canadian Séparatiste apparently. Though I'd love to have an analysis as to whether it's just a British term or it's used in Canadian RS too. Llammakey (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure our readers would just as easily understand and accept "British-Canadian" as they would "Anglo-Canadian", and it's less controversial and confusing. Does anyone here object to using "British-Canadian" instead? - ^theWOLFchild 01:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2/14th Battalion (Australia) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for 2/14th Battalion (Australia); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

List of wars involving the Dominican Republic

Could somebody who knows more about these things than me perhaps have a look at this list? Two relatively new editors seem to be fighting here. Related articles are Dominican-French Conflict of 1660 and Dominican-French War. At a minimum, some unencyclopedic language is being used here, but it wouldn't hurt to see whether these events can be verified, either, I think. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history

At Bilcat's insistence I suggest that "When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods" be amended to "When dealing with items related to a time, avoid using anachronistic flags from other times." because, times are particular and time and period mean the same thing. Thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Time and period don't mean the same thing. Period has multiple meanings. "15:22" is a time, "the 19th century" is a time period (as distinct from other kinds of period). "Time period" is perfectly valid IMHO, but if it offends your semantic taste, try "era" – although to be picky, "era" has a geological meaning different than "time period". — Stanning (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

how about "period of history" ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Pleonasm Time is all that's necessary to refer to time (or times if more than one is being referred to). "Time period" means "time time" and "period of history" means "time". Keith-264 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Time" alone is ambiguous, which is why I reverted your change, and others here have agreed. I'm fine with some of the other suggestions, or you can propose a less ambiguous wording, and see if it gains support. - BilCat (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It can't be ambiguous, adding redundant words makes it ambiguous. It suggests an unrealistically low opinion of potential readers' literacy, which I think is a mistake, although it is an American usage so perhaps not so jarring to occidental readers.Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not "Avoid using anachronistic flags." Sometimes less is more. (Hohum ^@) 13:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you should get a seegar for that one; succinct is good.Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced Egyptian articles

In clearing up Egyptian Armed Forces, I've come across a number of articles (Unit 333, Unit 999, National Guard (Egypt)) which have been seemingly translated from Arabic Wikipedia by enthusiastic editors, but are short, incoherent paragraphs completely without references. My preference would be to delete them, for the incoherence of their writing if not anything else. What do others think? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Just had a look. They certainly are problematic and I'd say tag them for deletion, but don't be surprised if someone claims they're salvageable and can be built up like Unit 777. Just sayin'... - ^theWOLFchild 03:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend redirecting them to Egyptian Armed Forces or another related article. There isn't enough salvageable content for merging.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 11:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Upon further reflection and some checking for references, I have prod'd Unit 333. Please take a look, consider, and Prod-2/prod remove as you see fit. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No disagreement here. Unit 999 is just as bad, if not worse. However, I found this; Hostage Rescue Force, another/similar bare-bones/no ref stub. But according to this source, HRF and Unit 333 may be one and the same. - ^theWOLFchild 14:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles

Following up on the SS Ideology article discussion above, I would like to ask for community's input on another GA article: Otto Kittel.

The editing on the article has proven to be contentious (see the multi-part discussion on the Talk page), so I followed up be reaching out to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: Franz Kurowski for a GA Article (also in multiple parts). This is also a long thread; in summary:

4 editors deemed Kurowski non WP:RS (including myself)
1 editor deemed it WP:BIASED, but okay to use for "broad outlines of who was involved and what equipment was used in which battles and where", as potentially an only source available on the subject
1 editor (the article's editor) deemed it WP:RS.

I would welcome your review of the article and the RSN discussion with an objective eye, and rendering your opinion. Suggestions on how to proceed would also be welcome.

Separately, the recent RfA (that caused the fallout in the SS ideology article) also raised issues about the current state of GA/FA articles for me. I've found some of the MilHist GA/FA articles flawed, such as the already mentioned Otto Kittel and Ideology of the SS. The latter is on the way to being delisted; pls see GA reassessment. Other problematic (in my opinion) FA/GA articles are:

Erich Hartmann – sources include:
- what appears to be a coffee-table book by Philip Kaplan Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe in World War WWII – 18 citations
- Insidiously titled^[1] book by Toliver, Raymond F.; Constable, Trevor J. (1986). The Blond Knight of Germany. – 20 citations
Heinrich Bär – 26 citations to Franz Kurowski
Horst Wessel – see discussion on the Talk page: PoV Problems

From The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser & Davies: The Blond Knight of Germany is a "hallmark of romanization", with its "insidious" title suggesting medieval chivalry that "not only fails to characterize the conduct of the German Army in the East, but, indeed, marks its opposite".

References

[1]
Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 170–173.

If you are up for a read, I've compiled a list of various instances of myths, legends, POV language and dubious claims. Many of these are unintentionally hilarious, so you may get a laugh:

As the result of seeing this phenomenon, I rewrote the HIAG article, discussing the post-war lobbying and apologia by former Waffen-SS officers. There's where a lot of my ~~research~~ sources come from, including the Revisionist tradition outside of HIAG.

I would like community's input on how best to deal with these issues, and what can be done at the MILHIST level, if that is possible. Please let me know your input and guidance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

In light of the way some articles have managed to slip thru the GA/FA process even they have some very questionable content, this is certainly a worthwhile request. The last thing we need in any Wikipedia article, especially when GA/FA, is Nazi glorification, pushing of a pro-Fascist POV or making light of the Holocaust. If we could have some extra eyes here take a quick look at some of these articles;

Thank you K.E. for bringing this to our attention and thanks in advance to anyone here who helps out. - ^theWOLFchild 10:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This individual, K.e.coffman, has been canvassing several Wikipedia noticeboards in what appears to be a campaign to oust work by Franz Kurowski from Wikipedia. On his home page there is an enormous list he has compiled himself on this subject (not just about Kurowski). He does this without being able to show that any of the information in the article is unreliable. Most of what he says appears to derived from his own opinions and "research", as he calls it, which is contravention of WP:Original Research. I'd encourage other editors to read those threads carefully, as there is no sense repeating it all here.

Moreover, Coffman seems to be trying to tell you that the majority of editors are in opposition to Kurowski's use: in actual fact three have yet to return to give a substantial opinion, and three (including myself) regard him as a reliable enough source for Otto Kittel. Dapi89 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this author nor have I looked into these are articles yet, but in light of your comments here, it still stands as worthwhile to have additional uninvolved editors review these pages, so that the matter can be settled one way or the other. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, yes. I have asked him repeatedly for sources over the last week, but he has not delivered them. The article is uncontroversial, as is the content. I await further comment from the uninvolved. Dapi89 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I am only involved on the Otto Kittel and Erich Hartmann articles because I added to the content. The other three I have not looked at. Dapi89 (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I am fully supportive of adding sources which help support information in an article, underline conflicting information, or help prove information to be incorrect. Having said this, if the book The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser & Davies, which by the way is not free of criticism on Amazon (see Editorial Reviews), helps to improve the article by either verifying or by disproving content, it will find my full support. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not a member of the WikiProject, but I did bother to read the long list of changes that User:K.e.coffman has posted on his/her page. Some of them are non-controversial cleaning of unsourced statements and editing of proper links and language. However, others might need to be discussed. While the user seems concerned about POV, I am not certain, his/her own edits are free of it.:

[....]

I am somewhat concerned that the user is motivated by his/her own POV rather than following sources. I hope that the changes can be compared to what the available sources actually say, to establish if further changes are needed. With cases involving Nazis, one should keep in mind that they have been subject to demonizing for the last 70 years and dispassionate sources can be rare. Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved to subsection "Alternate history department" below. Please find responses there. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Separately, here's another problematic GA article: Walther von Brauchitsch. It heavily uses an ancient 1944 source, which was picked by the editor "precisely because it was written in 1944, where the existence of the Holocaust was not yet known, which make Harts bio on Brauchitsch more neutral (in my opinion)". Please see: Brauchitsch – GA reassessment

Kurowski: "Journalism of gray and brown zone"

Summary of the criticism of the source via Franz Kurowski & The Myth of the Eastern Front (reposted from the RSN discussion):

Kurowski is a guru, i.e. an author, "(who) have picked up and disseminated the myths of the Wehrmacht in a wide variety of popular publications that romanticize the German struggle in Russia"
In his German wiki article, statements like "historical revisionist tendencies", "right-wing publisher", "far-right", "journalism of gray and brown zone"; "inspired by British Holocaust denier David Irving", etc, appear prominently. 'The Myth of the Eastern Front" is also mentioned. The article is well sourced to historians and other WP:RS sources.
"Military historian Jürgen Rohwer began a critical examination of the data published by Nazi Germany on successes (sunken tonnage) of submarine commanders in 1957. Afterwards, Kurowski belonged to the authors who held on to the details of the Nazi propaganda regardless of the research results." (Please see source and exact citation on De Wikipedia article above. So his numbers of "victories" are not to be trusted, IMO.)
"In his 2001 book Bombs over Dresden Kurowski included a 16 pages long "eyewitness reports" of low-flying aircraft hunting civilians. In fact, that was a made-up account. Lars-Broder Keil and Sven Felix Kellerhoff criticized Kurowski in their book German legends. (I believe in plain English this is called "lies". Please see citation on De.wikipedia.)

The Otto Kittel article is almost exclusively cited to Kurowski.

I had requested a translation of the De article on Kurowski, so that a an article on the English wiki can be created. The article is not finished yet, but you can read the draft translation here: | Draft:Franz Kurowski. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just for info, I have made a few minor edits to the draft, most importantly linking Fuller. Irondome (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is a translation of the German Wikipedia article on Kurowski. Clearly not an RS source by any stretch of the imagination. An advocate with a clear agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Has this matter and these editors cropped up before? Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Since Kurowski is neither an academic author nor published with an academic publisher, it is up to whomever is using him as a source to provide evidence that he is a reliable source. If K is only used to provide basic facts, the question is, why these can not be found in other, more reliable, sources. If K's opinion is related, it has to be made clear from what POV he is writing. The underlying problem with K, and authors like him, is, that English-language authors are liberally using these authors as sources without questioning their narrative, mostly, because they are unaware of their political affiliations. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP|ÄDA - DÄP VA- You are correct hit the nail on the head. There are so many reliable sources on the Eastern front that I have read and own ie. Albert Seaton, John Erickson, Earl Ziemke, and David Glantz. Why bother with Kurowski.?--Woogie10w (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Largely agree, if not for the fact that Kurowski is the only source (to my knowledge) which currently covers Kittel's personal background and family status (documented with family images). According to the Badische Zeitung, his son Manfred Kittel is currently working on a book about his father. This book, if considered reliable in this specific context (Manfred Kittel is not a historian), could supplement Kurowski. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP VA, you've failed to understand this is not an academic article, it does not require Professors or PhD holders to source it - being an uncontroversial article.

The user questioning Kurowski uses a source that calls him a revisionist without proper explanation, and then acknowledges the accuracy of his work on specific personalities and units within the German military.

The burdern of proof is clearly on Coffman. He has complied a short list and a German wikipedia article to support his contention. The first is vague and incomplete (AND contradictory), the second contains sources that cannot be traced by authors whose backgrounds are unknown. Dapi89 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with MisterBee1966 after I revisted the articles on Wikipedia that use Kurowski as a source. Kurowski was a prolific writer who specialized in WW2 German militaria, the lives and heroic deeds of German servicemen in the war. Some of his works are in the New York Public Library. A lot of good work has been done on Wikipedia using Kurowski as a source, the lives of the Aces, U-Boot crews and tank units. Kurowski is in the same genre as Osprey Publishing in the English speaking world. We need to keep Kurowski as a source but point out in a bio that he ignored the dark side of Nazi Germany and shined the spotlight on the German servicemen in the war. --Woogie10w (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There is also a POV involved in outright rejecting historical revisionism. Our article on the subject points to several cases where the views of revisionists challenged and replaced the previously established consensus views of mainstream historians. Leading to a new consensus or new discussion on the topic, and in some cases challenges from a new generation or revisionists. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This is most certainly not an academic article and nobody would be fooled about it. But WP is working according to academic standards, i.e. every statement of fact or opinion needs to be sourced by reliable and verifiable sources. The problem with Kurowski is, that in his prose he was prone to either omit unpleasant aspects or stated as facts certain myths circulating in far-right narratives in Germany. While the former is not a problem, since there are other authors focusing on these aspects, the latter is unacceptable. The problem is how to sort out what is proven fact and what is neo-Nazi propaganda. This is what makes Kurowski an unreliable source. A few examples:

Kurowski wrote a book published in 2007 about U-48, which fails to elaborate on the sinking of SS City of Benares, for which U-48's CO was put on trial after the war. To Kurowski these post-war trials were merely drummed up charges to smear the memories of wartime heroes.
In his 1995 book about the Fallschirm-Panzerkorps Hermann Göring Kurowski described the unit's operations against partisans. While he went into great detail of partisan atrocities against German military personnel, he omitted any German reprisals against civilians.
In 1983 and again in 1995 books by Kurowski were published by Druffel, one of the largest right-wing extremist publishing houses in Germany, which contained the myth about "The Massacre at Elbe Meadows".

Unfortunately this does not make Kurowski an unsuccessful writer, to the contrary. He wrote what people wanted to read and believe - and still do. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It is too risky to use this as a source and requires ample amounts of OR to sort potential wheat from the chaff.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP Kurowski gives us the typical West German working class version of the war. The memoirs of Von Manstein, Guderian and of course Paul Carell et al. are all in the same vain. Here is Kurowski live When I was in Germany 45 years ago I was warned never ever to argue with these guys. Discussion with people like this is futile. During the war they gunned down 40,000 unarmed civilians in Warsaw and then went to Sunday mass. However Kurowski's books may be of value because he covers the lives of individual soldiers and airmen. A few pearls may be laying in the pile of shit--Woogie10w (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem is that if we start scouring through the pile we will inevitably get ourselves dirty. It is much better for Wikipedia to rely on mainstream historians instead of popularized accounts like these.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The lives of Kurowski's Luftwaffe, U-boat and Panzer aces are triva IMO and probably lacks the notability that we require on Wikipedia. Kurowski's books are the sole source for the Wikipedia bios of these Nazi superheros. I wonder if anyone has checked these articles to see if there are copyright violations here on Wikipedia. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I went to my bookshelves and consulted the Luftwaffe Databook by Alfred Price published in 1997. The book has an extensive bibliography that does not include Kurowski's books. Listed in this bibliography are Die Ritterkreuzträger der Luftwaffe 1939 - 1945. Band 1: Jagdflieger by Ernst Obermaier, Das waren die deutschen Kampfflieger-Asse 1939-1945 by Georg Brütting and Luftwaffe Fighter Aces by Mike Spick. These books are available on the internet, check for yourself. Why rely on Kurowski and J J Fedorowicz Publishing Inc? --Woogie10w (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if Kurowski's representatives and publishers are using Wikipedia to promote his books.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

By all means use the works of Alfred Price, Ernst Obermaier, Georg Brütting and Mike Spick for the article on Otto Kittel, but I don't think they cover Kittel's personal background and family status like Kurowski does. How exactly is Kurowski's coverage of Kittel's personal details so controversial that we need to write yards of discussion across multiple boards? --Nug (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski is controversial because he was a apologist for the crimes of Hitler Germany. The man was not a professional historian, he cranked out pulp biographies of Nazi superheros. Does Wikipedia really need these articles which use Kurowski as their sole source published by J J Fedorowicz?--Woogie10w (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion became contentious after I attempted to clean up the non-encyclopedic prose on Otto Kittel, followed by this revert. This was followed by an extended discussion on the Talk page (started prior to the revert) and then at the RSN, with edit summaries such as:

As part of the discussion at RSN, the involved editor asked for "Infinitely more" feedback, so I started the thread here where the matter could get more eyes from editors interested in military history. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

To Keith-264's question, yes, I have run into opposition before, please see (reposted from my userpage):

It's "vandalism" to remove sources not used for citations, especially if they are WP:SELFPUBLISH and/or come from non WP:RS right-wing publisher Nation Europa
Again, "vandalism" to remove content uncited from 2012; it must be restored
The content, uncited from Mar 2015, was apparently "vandalized", then why go in and add citations and sources?
Also "vandalism" to remove mythology from Franz Kurowski; compare to this diff (see section: Assessment as tank commander)

Special mentions

"Same unencyclopedic POV push as on List of World War II Panzer aces from Germany from K.e.coffman." The diff is an article about "the hero of all Nazi fanboys" (per Zaloga), Michael Wittmann.
Discussion on the Talk page: Talk:Michael_Wittmann#Kurowski
"Unfounded claim that Kurowski is not WP:RS
Another problematic article Hans von Luck -- more than 50% of citations are to subject's memoirs, while the WP:OWN editor insists on restoring non-notable details and the subject's interpretation of events
Editor repeatedly removes "unreliable sources" tag, and gives their reasons on the Talk:8th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)

Cheers, K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Misterbee1966 was justified in reverting you. There are a load of sources that site this figure for the amount of equipment he (Wittman) was credited with or claimed. There is nothing controversial about this. Wittman's notability is based on his success.

Accusing other editors of WP:OWN won't win you a debate especially when they are asking you, quite reasonably, to support your claims or offer rational explanation for your edits. Dapi89 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the last one of your vandalism list; as noted on the talkpage there, it is not so simple to call that mythology. Numerous sources, falsely, consider Wittmann to be the top scorer of the war. More reliable sources provide lists of the top German tank commanders. In this case, while Kurowski may not be a RS, it was not exactly providing false or mythological information. As noted, George Forty's list attributed to the work of Wolfgang Schneider: 121-138 tank claims, with 132 anti-tank gun claims as well (ranking him fourth, regardless of the lower or higher figure).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I objected not to the revert (these happen and are normal part of the collaborative editing process), but to the edit summary: "vandalsim, adding back cited material" – that was after I initiated the discussion on the Talk page and laid out my rationale. Other edit summaries from the list above include: "Vandalism"; "restore vandalised content"; "restore vandalism", etc.

I had previously expressed to the editor my disagreement with their labeling my contributions as "vandalism" See: Your most recent edits, the discussion on my Talk page, following my removal of uncited material (tagged from 2011/2012, which should be removed per WP:V) and circular references to other wiki page, containing said uncited content. This was "vandalism" even though the editor went in and added sources to the restored material. Which leads me to believe that there were indeed issues with the material as I encountered it.

I do not find these edits summaries to be in the spirit of WP:Civility. I've never included "vandalism" in my edit summaries, except in a case of blatant IP trolling. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Myth of the Eastern Front

If we are going to debate the merits of the source criticising Kurowski, here are two reviews that I had previously posted to Talk:Otto Kittel:

Tracing the Resurrection of a Reputation: How Americans Came to Love the German Army, by a professional historian ("The book is a fascinating immersion into a simple but important question: How did the German soldiers who fought on the eastern front during World War Two become hero figures to so many Americans?")
...Has a convincing central line of argument but will fail to have any impact on its target, from feldgrau.net, one of the websites of "romances" that the book critiques. Interesting discussion follows.

Cheers, K.e.coffman (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The review by professional historian Kelly McFall is rather positive but points to the limitations of this work. To summarize:

The authors focus exclusively on the perception of the Eastern Front by the popular culture of the United States. A rather "narrow topic" as the reviewer says. So we are not dealing with a global perspective at all.
The first section of the book focuses on the prevailing American of Nazi Germany, the Wehrmacht, and the Schutzstaffel in the period during World War II and its immediate aftermath. Their sources involve newspapers, magazines, and other American media of the period.
The book then covers positive views on the Germans, produced early in the Cold War era. Based on on the changing geopolitical climate, the appearance of German military sources which vindicated their side of the conflict, and support of this effort by the American military. The reviewer finds that "the authors do a thorough job discrediting the claims made by the German officers in their memoirs, which can no longer be viewed as even minimally respectable."
The problem of this section is that apparently the writers have a rather peculiar understanding of what popular culture is about. The reviewer points that the pro-German sources and memoirs found an audience in "American soldiers and leaders". But the authors do not really establish if the pro-German sources had any effect on the American "public opinion" and popular culture. To quote from the review: "There’s no reference to public opinion polling data, for instance, nor to sales figures nor is there an attempt to do a demographic analysis of readership (admittedly a challenging task). Consequently, it’s more difficult to assess changing perceptions of the German army among ordinary Americans." Basically it is unclear if the average American was even aware these sources existed.
The third section of the book covers the appearance of a new generation of "devotees of the German army and its campaigns in the east". They included new authors, wargaming fans, and historical reenactment. The reviewers finds this section provides "insightful and exciting research" and that "Smelser and Davies astutely identify a set of sources historians have rarely tapped and survey it thoroughly." They identify the so-called "gurus" of this generation, influential authors and speakers which present "a heroic, sanitized picture of the German army in the east".
The problem the reviewers identifies with this section is its limits. The authors examine the "iconography and mechanics of war games" of the 1970s and the 1980s, along with their effects on gamers. But they ignore war games that do not involve or focus on the Eastern Front, do not identify how large this community of fans actually is, and fail to establish whether their views "have spread outside their group". They reviewer points that the section ends in the 1980s and does not cover developments of the 1990s and later, such as the appearance of "vast networks of computer gamers" who are also interested in World War II.
Among the short-comings of this book that the reviewer points out is that it is an examination of popular culture which manages to mostly ignore the influence of movies and television. The reviewer offers as examples the History Channel (which she mention is nicknamed the "Hitler Channel"), and war movies like Schindler’s List [1993] and Saving Private Ryan.

We currently lack an article on the perceptions of Nazi Germany in popular culture. The closest we have is one on Nazis in fiction, that seems to ignore that they have had appearances in the post-war era. This book might be an excellent source to start an article on the topic. But its narrow focus and omissions may render it inadequate as a source for military history. Dimadick (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternate history department

Here's more info on these edits. The bulleted items in italics are queries from @Dimadick:, the plain items are mine:

The following change on the Eugen Müller article, the author of the Commissar Order, made the following change: The article stated (sourced to Hans-Adolf Jacobesn) that the Order was unfavorably viewed by a number of German generals who initially refused to carry it out. Several Wehrmacht commanders apparently asked for the order to be softened, and Adolf Hitler himself declined any modification on the offer. The user changed the article to remove mention on one of the commanders who apparently viewed it unfavorably, because he claims that it contradicts another Wikipedia article. Whether the source supports was not addressed.

Manstein's supposed opposition to the Commissar Order was a myth put forth in Manstein’s memoirs. Please see Erich von Manstein#Trial. This invalidates the rest of the citation to Hans-Adolf Jacobsen; he may be an RS source, but I’ve seen enough sources mis- or selectively quoted to have the confidence to remove the citation. For examples, please see Arthur Nebe #1 & 2, Arthur Nebe #3 and SS Div Das Reich: Heaton.

The following edit removed a claim in the article on Arthur Nebe that Nebe was purposely exaggerating the numbers of people he had killed when reporting to his superiors. This was not sourced in this paragraph, but this claim is discussed and evaluated later in the same article, with sources.

The claim that Nebe “worked to reduce atrocities committed” is a myth put forth in an effort to white wash his war crimes; please see: Arthur Nebe: Apologetics. Nebe's was the first article of the WWII mythology genre that I encountered, with WP:RS sources inappropriately used to support various legends. Compare the current version with the way I encountered it: Arthur Nebe, Oct 2015: "This began the process of turning Nebe against the Nazis” (in 1933!); "Foreseeing the crimes in which he would be involved, he tried to escape it… ”; "He worked with Henning von Tresckow and Fabian von Schlabrendorff to reduce the atrocities committed…”; "In late 1942 after the Wannsee Conference, Nebe informed his fellow conspirators of the plans for the so-called Final Solution.”

The following edit in the article on Erich Marcks removed a paragraph (sourced by Beevor) that Marcks favored "Spartan" ways (austere, frugal, characterized by self-denial) by refusing to accept servings of whipped cream and protesting that Nazi Germany was starving. The user does not find this sourced claim notable, but is unclear why.

Not notable, second-hand anecdote from an “admiring subordinate”; just because something can be cited, does not mean that it should be included. In this case, it struck me as POV.

The following edit on the Otto Weidinger article, which mostly lacks sources, changed a paragraph on the post-war fate of Weidinger. The user kept the fact that Weidinger was held in custody without a trial for several years, until finally receiving one in 1951. But the user removed the reasons of the custody.

The reason for his extended custody was not specified, so I removed it per WP:V Additionally, the article stated, twice: "...were considered to be war criminals by virtue of having served in the Waffen-SS..." and "All were charged with a war crime for being volunteers in the Waffen-SS..."; that sounded POV to me, especially as it was not specified what Weidinger was charged with.

The following link changed a paragraph on the Hunger Plan which was sourced to Adam Tooze. The paragraph stated that the plan to prioritise the availability of food on the areas held by Nazi Germany so that Germans would be fed and the rest of the population would starve was in part motivated by the low amount of food supplies in German-held areas. The editor removed the rational of the plan, claiming that it was POV to publish Nazi self-justifications.

In the context of death from starvation of millions in the occupied countries in the war of extermination, stating, in Wikipedia’s voice, that “Germany was running short of food” struck me as POV.

The following edit on the Sepp Dietrich article, which is mostly without sources, is an addition rather than a deletion. In a paragraph stating that Dietrich was denied a pension by West Germany, the user stated that the rationale was that war criminals do not get pensions. The problem is that this rationale is also unsourced.

I'll look for a source or remove.

The edit on the article about the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich changed a paragraph sourced to Weidinger. The paragraph starts by stating the number of victims in the Oradour-sur-Glane massacre. Then the paragraph stated that Sylvester Stadler, commander of the "Der Führer" regiment, started a court martial investigation about the "incident" because the officer involved was acting without orders. The user removed mention of this investigation as "apologia”.

Weidinger’s account is apologia; pls see SS Div Das Reich: Post-war apologia. I replaced the “investigation” with a statement about a supposed court martial, with “citation needed" tag.

The following edit on the Hans-Ulrich Rudel article removed a paragraph on the escape of Rudel from Soviet-held territory on foot, because the paragraph was sourced to Rudel's autobiography. I am not certain if this was a reliable source, but the user did not start a review of it.

Obvious apocrypha, apparently coming from subject’s memoirs. The article was subsequently edited by another contributor to relay the circumstances of his capture in more neutral language. Please see Rudel: Defeat on the Eastern Front, 1st para.

The following edit on the Sepp Dietrich changed a source and shortened a paragraph. A section sourced to Tiemann stated that when Dietrich received an order by Adolf Hitler to tell members of the LSSAH to give up their cuff titles, Dietrich chose to disregard the order and decided that the armbands "...would stay on." The user changed the source to Stein and reduced the sentence to simply say that "Dietrich did not relay the order to his troops." Which changes the meaning of the section.

This was a copy-over from another article, more neutrally worded; please see: Operation_Spring_Awakening#Aftermath. Tiemann is a HIAG author, so his account should be considered biased, and potentially unreliable; please see HIAG: Historical revisionism.

The following edit on the Afrika Korps article completely removed a section of the article speaking of the quality of the German forces in Africa which made them stand out. It was sourced to Toppe and Rommel.

This edit was done by another editor, but I obviously agreed with it; otherwise, I would not have put it on my list. Rommel is WP:primary source, edited by Liddel Hart and Beyerlein, two people with a conflict of interest. Please see Liddell Hart: Role in the “Rommel myth”, for example.

The following edit has nothing to do with World War II. It is the article on the Wiederbewaffnung (rearmament) of West Germany in the 1950s by a decision of the United States. The article stated (sourced to David R. Snyder) that the American rationale was to prevent a Soviet invasion of West Germany. It seems to be standard Cold War thinking, but the editor removed mention of an invasion.

“Further Soviet invasions” implies that there were more than one; in addition, this statement struck me as POV as the literature that I’ve seen does not describe the Soviet advance into Germany as an “invasion".

The following edit on the Battle of Slivice article, which is mostly unsourced, changed a paragraph on the suicide of von Pückler-Burghaußl. The rationale of the suicide was the Americans refused to accept his surrender and the man feared what would happen to him if he fell to Soviet hands. The user removed all mention that the man feared the Soviets as "POV”.

The language included: "...attempted to storm the Germans and were decimated. ... The American negotiators refused to take the General, so, fearing revenge from the Russians..." These are typical tropes in the "parallel universe" WWII content: "decimated" (poetic language); "Russians" (alternate ethnography); implied "American perfidy", for refusing to accept the surrender of German forces after the agreed upon May 8 deadline, etc.

The user removed all mentions of the Russian Winter from a number of articles, claiming that it is a myth. Our article on the subject points that the effect of the Winter on warfare is exaggerated but "it is undeniable that severe winter conditions contributed greatly to their [the invasions of Russian-held territory] subsequent troubles.

The article General Winter speaks for itself, while the “coldest winter in 50 years” stopping the Wehrmacht is a myth. “Brutal Russian winter” trope is largely apologia by the former Werhmacht generals. More on this and on the mythology of the Eastern Front in general, please see this interesting lecture by Jonathan House (Glantz’s co-author for ‘’When Titans Clashed’’): "The Three Alibis", where "Russian winter" is discussed as one of the alibis for the German army losing the war. The discussion on the numerical superiority follows, debunking the myth of the "endless waves of men and tanks" eventually "submerging" the supposedly superior Wehrmacht (to quote Friedrich von Mellenthin).

"I am somewhat concerned that the user is motivated by his/her own POV rather than following sources. I hope that the changes can be compared to what the available sources actually say, to establish if further changes are needed. With cases involving Nazis, one should keep in mind that they have been subject to demonizing for the last 70 years and dispassionate sources can be rare". Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia is that you can immediately take action if you come across something that is dubious or POV. I’ve not been challenged on the edits above, which tells me that the other editors agreed with me. But if these look problematic after my comments above, let’s discuss. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary on Kurowski

Here's the summary of statements from non-involved editors, who participated in the discussion on the Otto Kittel talk page, at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or on this Talk page, roughly in chronological order:

Non RS

Nick-D: "I agree that this isn't a reliable source. Smelser & Davis' analysis of Kurowski's works is convincing (I've read the book). Moreover, I can't remember ever seeing him used as a reference in high quality books on the war, despite being very prolific."
Darkfrog24: "Sounds like it's not exactly history, that it's historical narrative; is this indeed non-fiction? [...] There maybe some case in which it is appropriate to cite this source, not in general no."
Stephan Schulz: "[Kurowski is] published by fringe publishers and with a widely recognised bias. As far as I know, none of his books are "well-received" as factual histories among academic experts - either they are ignored, or criticised. [...] He is not reliable because there is serious doubt about the quality of his work in general."
Coretheapple: "Clearly not an RS source by any stretch of the imagination. An advocate with a clear agenda."
ÄDA - DÄP VA: "The problem with Kurowski is, that in his prose he [...] stated as facts certain myths circulating in far-right narratives in Germany, [which] is unacceptable. The problem is how to sort out what is proven fact and what is neo-Nazi propaganda. This is what makes Kurowski an unreliable source."
maunus: "It is too risky to use this as a source and requires ample amounts of OR to sort potential wheat from the chaff. [...] If we start scouring through the pile we will inevitably get ourselves dirty. It is much better for Wikipedia to rely on mainstream historians instead of popularized accounts like these."
Woogie: "The lives of Kurowski's Luftwaffe, U-boat and Panzer aces are triva IMO and probably lack the notability that we require on Wikipedia. [...] The man was not a professional historian, he cranked out pulp biographies of Nazi superheros.

RS/Biased

Nug: "Kurowski may well indeed be a "Romanciser" of the German military, that does not mean that he is completely unreliable, particularly in regard to operational details and events. So I would treat Kurowski in terms of WP:Biased, because while being a veteran himself his is obviously biased towards the German army, he also has a "painfully accurate" knowledge of the details, according to his critics."
Peacemaker: "I would consider it reliable for non-opinion material (ie places, dates, actions). [...] A very sensible summary [re: Nug's comment above], IMHO."

I hope I correctly summarised the positions of those who rendered an opinion. Please feel free to correct or adjust as needed.

@K.e.coffman: - If you're going to post quotes from other editors here, especially from other pages, then you should probably include diffs for each one. IMHO - ^theWOLFchild 08:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Question: does this constitute enough of a consensus to consider Kurowski non WP:RS source for WWII history articles?

Comment: No. This has been an exercise in forum-shopping, and I for one am pretty sick of you banging on about this bloke. You have collected opinions sought at a range of places, then added them all up, rather than making your case comprehensively in one place and attracting editors there from relevant WikiProjects to make comment in a consolidated discussion where everyone interested is following it. This whole process has been dubious. You have now created what is effectively an attack page on Kurowski and been going around linking it to articles where he is used as a source. I don't care for Kurowski as a source, but this is pretty much a crusade. I've seen that before in the areas where I edit, and it usually says more about the campaigner. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Now, who is the judge of that? The process was initiated when - against common practice - some editors required prove that K was unreliable rather than the other way round, i.e. prove of K's reliability. The result is a lengthy discussion and an almost as long article providing this prove. However, said editors still cling on to the fact, that K got the dates right in his publications, which makes him somewhat reliable in their eyes. Still, the question goes unanswered, how said editors want to sort out the good from the bad, without the use of other sources that provide the exact same facts unspoiled. Because of K's proven record of false information, any of his publications have to be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and have to be excluded from WP. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the article Franz Kurowski is taking shape; more eyes on it would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the Kurowski article I'm more questioning the use of eight non-free images in the article. Is this still within the allowed framework of Wikipedia:Non-free content and do we really need that many images of his book covers? The article is becoming almost promotional in its nature from a visual point of view, also not in the text. The first one added from Der Landser illustrates his work perfectly well from what I can gather, low grade historical fiction. What do the other seven add to the article from an enceclopedic point of view that the the first one doesn't? Calistemon (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Calistemon: Pictures generally make the article more visually interesting & break walls of text; but you are right it's probably an overkill at this point. I will go ahead and comment some out. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Future aircraft acquisitions

Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain

Gerald Loxley

Data from Globalsecurity.org

HMS Constance?

About the proposal to add religious war to WP:VA/E

AFD David Weiss

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

"Battery"

Patton

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

Miramar accounts available

Who said what, and in which language?

Stonewall Brigade Band

Request for comment on use of flag icons

Anniversaries line in Infobox National Military

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 14, 2016

Sealift & Reserve ships

Expert still needed at fog of war

Discussion concerning categorisation of Indian Air Force officers

Texas medals, authentic or not?

Confederate States Army status

"Mine"

Wanted: A post-WW2 British Army specialist to assist a new editor

Awaken the Dragon

Operation Impact

Title review of Missile Turret

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/William_H._Crook

Merge, perhaps?

World History Error

Operation Great War Centennial?

NavWeaps.com reformatting, likely in 2017

Tony DiGiulian emailed me that he will be reformatting NavWeaps.com in a way that will break all current links to it, but likely not for a year. Here's what he sent me:

Right now, there are about 1,600 links from Wiki English to NavWeaps plus more for those Wikis in other languages. The majority of these may all get broken over the next year or so with the exception of any link on Wiki to www.navweaps.com itself which would still work correctly.

The reason for this is that I am considering upgrading the website from being HTML 4 based to being HTML 5 (php/css) based. This means that my webpages will go from having .htm extensions to having .php extensions. This change would obviously break any existing link to my webpages that point to an .htm extension. My first example of a .php extension would be a new main page found here:

http://www.navweaps.com/NavWeaps.php

The “Contact” and “12”/45 Mark 5 and 6” webpages linked from the above webpage are also in php format. These php pages are not “live” yet, as I am still working out the details of the format and haven’t yet settled on the final form.

In addition, the web designer that I am working with is encouraging me to change my directory structures so as to make it more friendly to mobile users. For example, I use “index_tech” as the directory for my Technology pages, he wants me to change this to be more like “Technology/index.php” which is more user-friendly. Again, this would break existing Wiki links.

I just wanted to give you a “heads up” at this point as I don’t want to create unnecessary problems and extra work at your end. If I decide to go down this path, then I’m looking at a timeframe of something of over a year before the website would be completely converted over as I have 1K+ webpages and it will obviously be a considerable effort to change them all over to the new format.

Sincerely yours, Tony DiGiulian http://www.navweaps.com

RobDuch (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this Rob. If the only thing that's changing is the extension, I imagine a bot could be developed to make the changes here. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of his traffic, if all that is changing is the redirect, he should probably put in a fix on his side that automatically redirects visitors with HTTP 301- that would help him not just with us, but with Google as well. —Luis (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oz downloads question

Dragon contest/editathon

RfC notice: Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles

What does this mean?

Armed conflict and several others listed at WP:RFD

"Unwounded survivors"

Hi,

I am working to improve the 61st Infantry Division article. The History of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment states "In June 1944 the invasion task of the 2/7th Battalion was to look after unwounded surviors who were landed back at Dover." (Cunliffe, p. 73)

This is a term I am unfamiliar with. Does anyone have any information that could elaborate on this in order to help expand what the division was doing in 1944?

Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe military members affected by shell shock (or PTSD), or displaced non-combatants. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Humor of a Country Lawyer seems to suggest those standing after a unit was virtually destroyed.Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Survivor is often used for a wreck and many vessels were lost during the invasion. Could this be the processing of those who went through the loss of their assault vessels who, rather than being dumped on the invasion beaches were shipped back to where it would be possible to rest, re-equip and reorganise? Monstrelet (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what I took it to mean. Keith-264 (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that's likely. I read something (I can't remember what, or where) on this topic a while ago noting that the survivors of WW2-era ship losses tended to lose all their personal belongings, papers and equipment and required a lot of help. An organisation which helped to get infantrymen back to their units would have also fitted in with the British Army's manpower shortages. A better source would probably provide a superior explanation, but surprisingly little has been written on the logistics of managing the human side of the Normandy invasion (there's lots on laying pipelines and shipping in trucks, but not much on how the Allied armies made good their casualties for some reason - historians seem to only now be realising that the Allied infantry units suffered comparable losses in Normandy to those on the Western Front in World War I). Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. So, for the moment, the best way to describe this would be survivors of ship losses?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Speculating, as this was an army unit, army personnel whose vessels were lost who would need reorganising and re-equipping before they can rejoin their own units Monstrelet (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Centenary of the Military Medal

What is a gunnery range?

Operation Avarice

File:Paul von Hindenburg (1914) von Nicola Perscheid.jpg

Peer review: War of the Antiochene Succession

A-Class review for Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy (historic) needs attention

A-Class review for Charles Heaphy needs attention

Crimea annexation RFC

Operation Impact

War

U.S. Navy ship article names

Any UK aviation folks able to access the National Archives?

Becke, Order of Battle of Divisions, Part 2a & 2b: Territorial & Yeomanry Divisions

Kanalkampf

Technical

Lists of aircraft in a given role

Looking for experienced editors

US coastal forts and WWI/WWII task forces

Ordnance companies

Discussion on auto-assessment of articles

Albert O. "Scoop" Vorse, Jr.

Area of Zeitenlik military cemetery

Dictionary question

The same text is duplicated across a lot of articles

Note: This was originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, but is likely to be of interest to the WPMH. — Maile (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up or even if this is problematic, but while disambiguating Freedom of Information Act, I noticed that an unusually high number of articles regarding prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp are presenting the exact same content, namely:

When he assumed office in January 2009 President Barack Obama made a number of promises about the future of Guantanamo.^[1]^[2]^[3] He promised the use of torture would cease at the camp. He promised to institute a new review system. That new review system was composed of officials from six departments, where the OARDEC reviews were conducted entirely by the Department of Defense. When it reported back, a year later, the Joint Review Task Force classified some individuals as too dangerous to be transferred from Guantanamo, even though there was no evidence to justify laying charges against them. On April 9, 2013, that document was made public after a Freedom of Information Act request.^[4]

References

[1]
Peter Finn (January 22, 2010). "Justice task force recommends about 50 Guantanamo detainees be held indefinitely". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved July 21, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
[2]
Peter Finn (May 29, 2010). "Most Guantanamo detainees low-level fighters, task force report says". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved July 21, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
[3]
Andy Worthington (June 11, 2010). "Does Obama Really Know or Care About Who Is at Guantánamo?". Archived from the original on 2010-06-16. Retrieved July 21, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
[4]
"71 Guantanamo Detainees Determined Eligible to Receive a Periodic Review Board as of April 19, 2013". Joint Review Task Force. 2013-04-09. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved 2015-05-18. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

If you take a look at this search, you'll notice that the foregoing text is repeated, exactly as it is, across dozens of articles. I don't know if this is an issue, but I thought I should say something because I kept stumbling on the same text over and over. Mz7 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: is our expert on Guantanamo, maybe he can comment. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Geo Swan here. I won't claim to be an "expert", because nothing you or I or any of us writes, in article space, is allowed to lapse from WP:OR. But I did write the passage in question, and most of what the wikipedia has to say about Guantanamo captives.

As to whether 34 articles should each contain a very similar passage -- please bear in mind how common it is for related articles to do so. Each element in the Periodic Table will contain passages very similar to passages contained in the related articles. Why? Because all chemical elements have electrons, form compounds with other elements. All elements have a toxicity, be it zero to instantly fatal. It would be the same for articles about members of the US Senate, or UK House of Lords. They too are likely to contain passages similar to those found in the related articles.

We don't know the details of the determinations of the Joint Review Task Force, because they were held in secret, and their minutes, and the documents prepared for them have never been made public. However, the follow-on boards, the Periodic Review Boards, have operated with a greater degree of open-ness. Five documents are prepared for each of these hearings of these boards. All meetings are conducted via videolink. The first stage of the hearings is always made public. Reporters can and do tune in. For many of the captives this is the first time they have been shown, since their capture. However, they can opt out, as some do, mainly for mental health issues. There is press reporting on each hearing. So, for every individual whose article has the repeated passage @Mz7: noticed, there should be follow-on coverage of those hearings, particularly of the third party coverage of them.

This means that the material that follows the passage Mz7 noticed was similar, across articles, should be very different. Each captive's case was different, they faced different allegations, they had different capabilities. Some captives learned English, in Guantanamo, and even started some college courses. Others were driven barking mad, and had to be confined to the psychiatric wing, where, if they aren't dosed with tranquilizers, they howl incoherently 24x7. Some have family support that others lack. So they have different prospects for re-integration into the mainstream, once repatriated, or sent to a third country for asylum.

Twenty-nine of these individual have had their Periodic Review. When their articles don't have coverage of their hearings it doesn't mean the press coverage of their hearing wasn't significant, or interesting. It means the wikipedia volunteers who follow such developments haven't gotten around to it.

If you are interested in weighing in on this corner of the project I'd be happy to "show you the ropes". Geo Swan (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Colour me unconvinced by your explanation, Geo Swan. The chunk of text is about the management of the detention/review processes at Guantanamo, and pertains to it/them. Whereas it affects detainees, it is not about the detainees. It seems to me well possible to report on their review without repeating this chunk each time. Users more interested in Obama's promises w.r.t. Girmo, or the mutation of the review process ,can surely be linked to an article on which such information is appropsiate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the first issues should be to check that this text is not a close paraphrase and is accurate to its cited sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

- I'd suggest removing this where it's not needed. There's been way too much "boiler plate" editing on topics involving Guantanamo (often motivated by WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) and it's not helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment, the text does seem to have a bit of a political slant to it. I wonder if, in more distantly related articles, the bit about Obama isn't a WP:COAT. Yes, FDR endorsed universal health care, and failed to deliver, but it's not necessary to include that on every related article. TimothyJosephWood 00:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a description of the obvious. Keith-264 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Asim Thahit Abdullah al Khalaqi, you have an entire section that is about this larger political milieu , and a single itty bitty sentence at the end that is about the actual subject of the article. This boiler plate would be perfectly acceptable in an article about gitmo (and there's a lengthy section about it there), and it is absolutely appropriate to include that this guy was recommended for release by the report (because that is information about the subject specifically), but this is the equivalent of including several lines on the FIFA scandal in an article about individual footballers.

It would be WP:DUEWEIGHT if POTUS had mentioned this guy specifically, but he didn't. Anyone who wants a larger socio-political understanding of gitmo has more than ample opportunity to visit that article and get an eye full. Presumably, someone who is on this article about this guy is looking for information on him. As it stands, this takes the opportunity, at every opportunity, to say "don't forget about a campaign promise that would have been relevant if it happened, but didn't, so it isn't". TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

DGG suggested, below, that the passages that covered the individuals' reviews by the Joint Review Task Force, could be changed up, a little, so, even though they said more or less the same thing, they said it differently.
Mz7 didn't voice a concern over bias -- merely that the passages seemed too similar.
Other contributors claimed they saw lapses from WP:NPOV in the passage(s), but didn't state what they saw as biased, and didn't suggest an alternate wording.
Well, Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada, an individual who has received a lot of coverage this year, because the hunger strike he has been on for the last decade had reduce his weight to about 60-70 pounds, was released yesterday. I noticed that Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada#Guantanamo Review Task Force already uses a different wording. I drafted that passage on June 26, 2015. Mohammed Nazir Bin Lep#Guantanamo Review Task Force, Abdu Ali al Haji Sharqawi#Guantanamo Review Task Force, Saifullah Paracha#Guantanamo Review Task Force, the first three articles the search Mz7 recommends, had their passages added on May 19, 2015. I went back to May 19th, 2015, my contribution history for that day shows that, over an hour and a half, I added that passage to about three dozen articles.

I am not an SPA. More than two thirds of the articles I have started have nothing to do with terrorism. In 2005 I started the articles on the US Coast Guard's Island class cutters, and Marine Protector class cutters. I started articles on some individual cutters. When the Coast Guards plans for the Sentinel class cutters approached completion I started the article on that class, as well. Bollinger shipyards started to deliver new cutters, every three months, about four years ago, and I started articles on the new cutters, as RS covered their launches, or commissionings.

Those articles, obviously, are going to contain similar passages, as the vessels were built in the same yard, to the same design. They differed, because they were written months apart.

What we don't want is for related articles, to contradict one another, merely because they were written at different times.

One of the interesting characters I came across as I researched the Sentinel class cutters was Chip Bowen, who was the Coast Guard's senior NCO in 2010. He took the initiative to have the vessels in the new class to be named after Coast Guard heroes -- enlisted Coast Guard heroes. When I had written the articles each of them had a paragraph that briefly described the vessel's namesake. But the first articles didn't link to or mention Bowen's role in their naming. I started updating the earlier articles on the individual cutters, to include a sentence with information on Bowen's role.

Mz7 asked, above, whether it was a problem for related articles to contain very similar passages. My answer would be brief similar passages are not a problem. Long identical or similar passages are problematic for several reasons. The details should be covered in only one place, the article where those details are most central. When the details are covered in multiple articles they can grow out of synch, and contradict on another. But we do surround some links to related content with brief exposition to set the context of the link.

@Tagishsimon: wrote: "It seems to me well possible to report on their review without repeating this chunk each time." We could rewrite the wikipedia so what were currently subsections of articles were all turned into standalone articles, and assert that we hadn't altered the wikipedia's actual intellectual content. Alternately we could roll the articles on Astronomy, Quantum Mechanics, Optics, etc, into the main articles on Physics, make them merely subsections of the main article on Physics. We could make that change, and assert that we hadn't altered the wikipedia's actual intellectual content. The really determined reader would still eventually be able to find the content they were looking for, at least in theory. However, neither of those changes would practical. Really, neither of those changes would serve our readers.

Links need context. Not all links, but most links. Sometimes the required context is only a clause. Barack Obama is the current President of the United States, George W Bush is a former President. Most English speaking people know this, today. But we should write for future readers, who may no longer remember who former Presidents were, and we should write for people for whom English is a second language. So, if I include the first reference to Bush, or Obama, in an article, I add their title to provide context. I thought the Joint Review Task Force required a longer context setting.

I've seen articles where there had been a subsection about a related topic, that had a paragraph of context setting, followed by a {{seealso}} or a {{main}} template, where someone had later come along, and removed the entire paragraph of context setting, leaving only the {{seealso}} or {{main}} template. If this is what Tagishsimon was suggesting I have to say this can look ugly. It never looks like it was done to serve readers. Geo Swan (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC re: duplicated text

Seems to only be a couple of strongly held positions here, certainly not enough to definitively keep or change this boiler plate. Probably a good place to get some outside opinions. TimothyJosephWood 23:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete Content in question. I'm inclined to agree with User:Nick-D's comments above. The content may be accurate and verifiable, but as currently written and presented it looks far more like WP:SOAPBOXing than encyclopedic content. Just delete it... NickCT (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete - the issues raised above with this text are compelling, and seems to be part of the wider issues with our coverage in this area (including the non-notability of many of the articles themselves, which as far as I can tell were mostly written to make some sort of point). Anotherclown (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete I was being polite above: this problematic text is part of the long-term POV pushing on this topic by GeoSwan, for which he or she has been repeatedly criticised and sanctioned for in the past. It needs to go. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think Nick-D has mis-spoke. Yes, my efforts have been criticized. I think most people accept that my efforts have been in good faith. I have never been blocked, or had a topic-ban, so I think it is mis-leading to assert I have been "repeatedly sanctioned". More-over, not everyone agrees with Nick-D that my efforts were ill-advised, or, at least, that they were generally ill-advised.
  In his comments here Nick-D has made comments about what he or she thinks my motives are. In my opinion these kinds of comments don't comply with the recommendations that discussions should be about editorial issues, not the personalities of the contributors involved in the discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete, or serious rewrites that would be nearly an effective deletion, as can probably be gleaned from my above comments. TimothyJosephWood 12:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment In analogous situations, I usually try to vary the boilerplate a little, as a matter of style. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Disagree

If the passage is biased, a version, or versions, should be prepared, that isn't biased. I notice no one has been specific as to how it is biased. In my experience, when someone reports bias, but can't or won't be specific about the nature of the bias, it is important to bear in mind the possibility that the bias is within the observer, not in the passage they think is biased.
Has anyone who suggests deletion given any thought as to how to explain to reader why these individuals continued to be detained, without covering their review by the Guantanamo Review Task Force?
These individuals who have spent more than a decade in Guantanamo have gone through several different reviews: (1) OARDEC reviews, by the OARDEC agency -- a separate agency from JTF-GTMO; (2) habeas reviews; (3) formerly secret OARDEC reviews; (4) Joint Review Task Force reviews; and, those who were designated innocent, yet dangerous, Periodic Review Board reviews. How can coverage of these individuals possibly be improved by censoring that the Joint Review Task Force reviews even happened? Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

My concern is not primarily regarding WP:NPOV. While that may be an issue, it's a more complicated position to argue than WP:COAT, which is equally qualifying for removal. The passage is about Obama, about campaign promises, about the task force, and not about the subject of the articles. It therefore belongs on the articles about the things it is about, and not on somewhat related WP:BLPs. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Since I was the one who originally brought this to the project's attention, I should say that my original concern, as Geo Swan mentioned above, was the similarity of the texts, not their neutrality. However, I did notice the subtle use of rhetorical anaphora in the passage, with "He promised" repeated at the start of two sentences. It struck me as a slight deviation from the formal, dispassionate tone we're supposed to use on Wikipedia. I would agree with DGG that, as a matter of style, we should vary this contextual information across articles, rather than submit to "boilerplate" copy-paste writing. With regards to WP:COAT, the relevant question is: is all of this information about Obama's promises essential to each of the Guantanamo prisoners' articles, or would it better to instead cut it down and provide a link to an article that would explain the context it more detail? Mz7 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary

The consensus seems to be to delete, or alter the usage of this boiler plate. Barring further comment, I think I'm willing to call the matter and give the go for anyone who wants to spend an afternoon on this. I would like to this weekend, but I don't know if I'll have time. Maybe I can get to it next week sometime. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Geo Swan has raised concerns above. TimothyJosephWood 13:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, above, I pointed out that, a month or so after I repeated the wording that triggered @Mz7:'s initial concern I had drafted an alternate wording, at Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada#Guantanamo Review Task Force. Comments above agree we should consider alternate wordings -- but no-one has commented on the specific alternate wording from June 26, 2015, at Tarek Ali Abdullah Ahmed Baada#Guantanamo Review Task Force. Geo Swan (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate text proposal

We wanna get concrete? I like it. Let's do it. Looking at the article for Jabran al-Qahtani:

Remove the first three sentences entirely per WP:COAT.
Remove the Worthington source as it appears to be essentially this guy's blog.
Remove "even though there was no evidence to justify laying charges against them" because that's not at all what the sources say, and probably WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

What the first WaPo source says is "unprosecutable because officials fear trials could compromise intelligence-gathering and because detainees could challenge evidence obtained through coercion."
What the second WaPo source says is that they "expressly stated or otherwise exhibited an intent to reengage in extremist activity upon release."

Remove "too innocent to charge, but too dangerous to release" because the sources don't say anything even close to that, and because WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:WEASEL, and probably WP:RGW again.
Include something like this, which actually says each individual was recommended for indefinite detention, because the current sources don't mention any names. Unfortunately, this source lists every detainee in detention as the time, and not the 48 recommended. A better source is still needed.

So we're left with something similar to this:

In 2010, the Joint Review Task Force recommended Jabran al Qahtani as one of 48 individuals to be indefinitely detained as he was at a high risk to reengage in extremist activity, for fear that a trial could compromise intelligence-gathering, and the risk of challenging "evidence obtained through coercion."^[1]^[2]^[3] In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Department of Defense confirmed that Jabran al-Qahtani was one of 71 detainees eligible for a Periodic Review Board.^[4]

References

[1]
Peter Finn (January 22, 2010). "Justice task force recommends about 50 Guantanamo detainees be held indefinitely". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved July 21, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[2]
Peter Finn (May 29, 2010). "Most Guantanamo detainees low-level fighters, task force report says". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved July 21, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[3]
"List Of Guantanamo Detainees". Real Independent News and Film. 01 October 2004. Retrieved 25 April 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[4]
"71 Guantanamo Detainees Determined Eligible to Receive a Periodic Review Board as of April 19, 2013". Joint Review Task Force. 2013-04-09. Archived from the original on 2015-05-19. Retrieved 2015-05-18. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

We have two sentences, but importantly, we have two sentences about the subject of the article, and which don't go beyond what the sources say (with the exception of the needed source fingering him as one of the 48). TimothyJosephWood 22:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Book request

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 4, 2016

"Southern Air Command"

"South Western Air Command"

Wales contest finale

A-Class review for Metallurgical Laboratory needs attention

Date formats

User:Jojhutton, who I don't think is a member of this project, has been altering date formats on pages about military personnel (mostly in the Band of Brothers crowd) from DMY to MDY. Contributions may be seen at Special:Contributions/Jojhutton. They were using one of the editing tools and I don't think he was reading the articles. If I'm wrong, someone say so; if I'm right, I don't want to get into a long-term editing war with this editor. So far, I've reverted Ronald Speirs, whose rank Jojhutton also deleted from the lead, and Winfield Scott Edgerly.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

DMY format is US military format and applies to military members per MOS:DATETIES, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

DATETIES does not allow apply to biographies. Only military units and related articles. JOJ ^Hutton 22:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on what? There is nothing about restrictions on the MOS:DATETIES section. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Based on the fact that biographies are articles about a persons entire life. Doesn't need a restriction, because biographies are not military articles. Just because someone served in the military does not mean that the article is a military article. JOJ ^Hutton 22:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And what if their military service is the only reason the person is notable? TimothyJosephWood 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Timothy, you took the words right out of my mouth. I understand Jo's point of view where a person's military service is incidental and unremarkable, but if it's their reason for notability (why the WP article exists) I see no reason the military format should not be used, as it has in several US military bios that have gone all the way to FA. If they're notable for military and other reasons (Grant and Eisenhower are obvious examples, though even then it was their military careers that led to their political careers) then I'd say there's a case for leaving it to the main editors' preferences. So as a rule I would not be arbitrarily changing date formats in all MilHist-tagged US bios. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This may be a good opportunity to reach consensus and clarify this in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history. TimothyJosephWood 23:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Army CMH Style Guide 2011.pdf. Section 6.1 — Maile (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This is why I love the military. Someone, somewhere has an officially recognized opinion on compound adjectives. TimothyJosephWood 23:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Many organisations have style guides. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but few have style guides and nuclear weapons. TimothyJosephWood 12:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Request: Those familiar with non-US militaries, are there other examples with date formats? TimothyJosephWood 11:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted, that in fact en:wikipedia.org is not "US Wikipedia", and besides of all, DMY is a worldwide standard in real life, not MDY. --Matrek (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"Retaining the existing variety" is another element of the Style Guide. But essentially, if something becomes contentious, then changing without a consensus is a poor way to go about it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Date formats

Per MOS:DATETIES, articles on subjects primarily related to militaries or military history should use the standard military date format, DD Month YYYY (or D Month YYYY). This includes spaces and excludes hyphens or commas. For example, "1 January 1900", is acceptable. Formats such as "1-January-1900"; "1 January, 1900"; "1January1900" or "1, January 1900", are not. In cases where the day is a single digit, a leading 0 should be omitted. For example: "1 January 1900", and not "01 January 1900."

The abbreviated format, DD Mmm YYYY (or D Mmm YYYY), is acceptable in cases where brevity is important, such as complex tables, or in cases where a date is repeated multiple times. However, in prose, the first mention of a date should include the full date format as outlined above. Subsequent uses of the same date may then be abbreviated.

Abbreviations should follow the same format as full dates above, regarding spaces, commas, hyphens, and leading zeros. In addition, three letter abbreviations should have only the first letter capitalized. For example, January should be abbreviated "Jan" and not "JAN".

In cases where the context is exceedingly clear, and brevity important, dates may be further abbreviated to the DD Mmm YY format. For example, "1 Jan 55". All previous guidance applies. This format should be avoided in any case where it may cause confusion, such as events that take place across century turns.

Biographies

Existing biographies related to military history should follow MOS:DATERET as a default, and extensive efforts should not be undertaken to comply with this MOS for it's own sake, unless there is strong consensus for the change. This consensus should be based primarily on the prominence of military service in the WP:NOTABILITY of the individual.

For example, an article on an individual, such as a Medal of Honor recipient, who is notable only for their military service, should most likely follow this format. An article on an individual, such as George W Bush, who would be notable had they never served in the military, most likely should not.

Biographies of civilians, such as Ash Carter, who are notable primarily for military related reasons, but who themselves did not serve in uniform, should generally not follow this guidance, and instead follow MOS:DATEFORMAT.

All articles, regardless of topic or consensus, should follow MOS:DATEUNIFY, and should not mix date formats.

Again, just a draft to generate ideas. I realize its pretty US-centric and that should probably be addressed. I have no idea how uniformed non-armed services (e.g., NOAA) should factor in, if at all. Thoughts, suggestions, change, and epithets are welcome. TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Re "US-centric", the United States is one of the few that would even need this guideline. Other countries follow DMY as their standard style. Are there countries other than the US that uses MDY in civilian life? — Maile (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, all of Europe (UK possibly excepted) is on DMY.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

UK is DMY although MDY isn't disallowed - just less common. Nthep (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, even the King used MDY (scroll down this page to his handwritten document, where he dates a document "April 15th 1942"), which Wikipedia of course converts to DMY in its references to that action. See Award of the George Cross to Malta and George_Cross#Malta, both of which use 15 April 1942. Kablammo (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Canada can use either format. Llammakey (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If only there were some place you could look these things up. Other than the USA, the only countries to use MDY exclusively are Micronesia and Belize; it's an accepted variant in Canada, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines, most of Asia uses YMD, and the rest of the world is DMY. ‑ Iridescent 20:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

MDY is seen frequently in sufficiently old UK newspapers and such, though. It's occasionally annoying, because, logically, you should give the dates in the reference as used in the reference - but everyone wants to change them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Specific questions for those commenting:

Do you support the idea of a MilHist MOS amendment regarding dates?
If so, do you disagree with any of the standards I've given in the example and how? (e.g., Abbreviations should not be allowed. The use of hyphens should be permitted.)
Are there any standards you would add to the example?

TimothyJosephWood 20:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. Like the proposal. Llammakey (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. I'm fine what what you're proposing. The current WP:MILMOS only covers date ranges, so what you're proposing is really needed in the MOS. — Maile (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. --Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Request What are some non-US equivalents of the examples used? Right now we have the Medal of Honor, Bush II, and Ash Carter. The VC seems like the obvious parallel to the MoH. Who can we use for the other two examples, someone for whom service is incidental to their notability, and a civilian related to military service, who has not served in uniform themselves? TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Although I'm not at all opposed to the concepts articulated in the proposal (and would say that it mostly reflects the style I prefer to use), I do wonder if it is necessary to codify it when it probably is only a minor issue and would (I imagine) mostly only effect a small sub-set of our articles (i.e. US-related topics). Is there really a problem that requires a prescriptive "fix" or is this something that can just be worked out by editors on a case by case basis by discussion and the application of extant policy (such as MOS:DATETIES, MOS:DATERET, MOS:DATEUNIFY etc.)? I guess I can see editors from outside the project being concerned about us attempting to apply "our" style to articles which rightly fall under a number of projects, and expect some inevitable "push back" as a result. As an aside I'm not a fan of abbreviating dates at all (except in the case of tables or where brevity really does require it). For instance I couldn't see any reason to abbreviate a repeated date at subsequent use just for the sake of it. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment Like Anotherclown, I also don't see the problem this well-intentioned proposal is trying to solve. MOS:DATEVAR provides useful relevant guidance, and it's not really the case that there is such a thing as a "standard military date format". Even if the world's militaries did have a common approach on the topic, it wouldn't really matter because Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and uses general writing styles. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D, Anotherclown, I agree 100% that it is pedantic, but that's kindof what an MOS is supposed to be. "Standard military date format" is probably incorrect language. But it is more or less the format used by NATO and in turn WikiProject NATO. NATO is about as strong as it's going to get for agreement on English conventions. Regardless, I agree that the "standard mil form" should be removed.

The abbreviation part can probably be completely removed. This is the kind of opinion I was hoping to solicit when I was puking out as many ideas as I could think of. It really doesn't even quite follow US standards, which would be full month=full year, abrv month = two digit year.

As to the possibility of MOS over application, it might improve the MOS to have a standoffish addition to the standard disclaimer re:

"Many articles may deal extensively, but not exclusively with military subjects, and this MOS may or may not be appropriate. The purpose of this MOS is to provide guidance, and help standardize the coverage of military topics, not to provide a basis for WP:WIKILAWYERING. When in doubt, or when there is WP:NOCONsensus, defer to WP:MOS.

Admittedly, I have run into the occasional instance where editors want to over apply MEDMOS, but it's never been seriously disruptive.

Overall, I just wanted to explore the possibility of using this as an opportunity to improve the MOS, not necessarily to respond to an immediate or impending crisis. The intention wasn't so much to right a wrong, but to fill in a gap in our MOS identified by a disruptive editor. The MOS already has a date standard, so it's apparently within its scope, but it seems odd to address date ranges specifically, when you haven't addressed dates generally.TimothyJosephWood 13:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Support I thought this was the way it already was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment. It would be nice if this was in the MH MOS, because it repeatedly comes up at MOS Dates and Numbers. Examples 1, 2, 3. For a while, it was a recurring debate on Audie Murphy's article, but has died down a little bit for the time being. Not a must-have in the MH MOS, but it would be a nice back up. For whatever reason, this is just one of those topics that gets heated in debates. — Maile (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I removed the guidance on abbreviations per comments above. I have combined the existing guidance on date ranges, and tweaked for consistency, to make a stand-alone date section. I have also added a reference and language to anchor this format as the standard format of the UN, as justification for its usage.

I've excised this portion of the previous draft, and propose it be added as the first section of the MOS, to preempt any attempts at using the MOS disruptively, as concerns have been expressed about this. It also doesn't really belong in a date section, as it deals with usage of the MOS generally, and not dates specifically. I also added non-US examples to help better globalize it. The reference to Marise Payne may be a weak one as I admittedly just googled "Australian defense minister". Elvis is American, but honestly I don't know any non-American examples to use.

Dates

Existing articles related to military history should follow MOS:DATERET as a default, and extensive efforts should not be undertaken to comply with this guidance for it's own sake, unless there is strong consensus for the change.

Per MOS:DATETIES, articles on subjects predominately related to militaries or military history should use the standard format adopted by the UN ^[1], DD Month YYYY (or D Month YYYY). This includes spaces and excludes hyphens or commas. In cases where the day is a single digit, a leading 0 should be omitted. For example:

1 January 1900 and not 1-January-1900; 1 January, 1900; 1January1900 or 1, January 1900

1 January 1900 and not 01 January 1900

All articles should follow MOS:DATEUNIFY, and should not mix date formats.

Date ranges

Military events often require the expression of a date range; this presents opportunities for clear, attractive formatting.

En dashes

The Manual of Style specifies that an en dash rather than a hyphen should be used. Where there are internal spaces within one or both items, the en dash should be spaced on both sides. Examples:

1968–70, not the hyphenated 1968-70

May–August 1944

3 June – 15 August 1914; not 3 June - 15 August 1914

12–14 September 1943

Minimal repetition

Consider expressing date ranges without repetition; thus:

January–March 1968, not January 1968 – March 1968

3–4 November 1951 not 3 November 1951 – 4 November 1951; nor even 3 November – 4 November 1951

Closing item

The closing item in a year range may be two digits rather than four, at editorial choice:

The second phase (2004–06), rather than The second phase (2004–2006)

References

[1]
"Numbers, dates and time". United Nations Editorial Manual Online. 2014. Retrieved 17 March 2016.

Comments are welcome, especially from Nick-D and Anotherclown, whose concerns I have attempted to address. TimothyJosephWood 14:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that MOS:DATE specifies that for year to year ranges, the range's end year is usually abbreviated to two digits. So for your example above, the format would be 1968–70. Mojoworker (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Fixed. TimothyJosephWood 19:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Application

Many articles may deal extensively, but not exclusively with military related topics. When in doubt, or when there is no clear consensus, defer to WP:MOS. As a general rule, this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles.

Biographies
Consensus to follow this guidance on biographies of living or deceased persons should be based primarily on the prominence of military service in the WP:NOTABILITY of the individual. For example, an article on a Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross recipient, who is notable only for their military service, should most likely follow this guidance. An article on an individual, such as George W Bush or Elvis Presley, who would be notable had they never served in the military, most likely should not. Biographies of civilians, such as Marise Payne or Ash Carter, who are notable in large part for military related reasons, but who themselves did not serve in uniform, should generally not follow this guidance.

Ok, so this has seen daylight for about a week and there's been no objection. The previous proposal seemed to have general support, and I've tried to address the concerns of two commenters, whom I pinged to this second proposal, with no resultant concerns raised. I'm going to go ahead and incorporate this into the MOS. If anyone has concerns feel free to revert and continue the discussion here. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)