Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The November newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Boot Monument • Teddy Wynyard • Breton Civil War, 1341 • Operation Matterhorn logistics • Steele's Greenville expedition • Battle of Morlaix • GL Mk. I radar Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. • Project Pluto • SMS Berlin • Battle of Köse Dağ Peer reviews Sher Shah Suri • War of the Antiochene Succession • 4th Army (France) • List of foreign-born samurai in Japan • Hiroshima Maidens • German Jewish military personnel of World War II Good article nominees Simon Stuart (general) • Dabney Coleman • Crusading movement • Black and Tans • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • Federalist No. 29 • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Charles the Bold • Te Pōrere Redoubts • Aromal Chekavar • Tumu Crisis • 1838 Mormon War • Mseilha Fort • SMS Albatross (1871) • Shō Hashi • HMS Savage (1910) • HMS Lively (1813) • Edward Caledon Bruce • Alt Llobregat insurrection • French ironclad Tonnant • SMS Scorpion (1860) • 1991 Andover tornado • Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem • Richard Stevens (RAF officer) • Henry O'Neill (soldier) • Omani ship Nasr al Bahr Good article reassessments USS Texas (BB-35) • Haile Selassie • Angevin kings of England Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (149,517) • only work on referencing and citation (43,222) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,882) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,920) • work on structure (32,142) • only work on structure (339) • work on grammar (8,205) • only work on grammar (47) • work on supporting materials (32,931) • only work on supporting materials (777) • assessment (6) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (9) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (6) • task forces added (18) • attention to task force coverage (653)

Kriegsmarine ships TA 10 and TA 11

What is the correct description of these ships. Were they torpedo boats or destroyers? One source I have describes them as the former, whilst another states that they were formerly the French destroyers Pomona and Iphegenia respectively. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

They were former French La Melpomène-class torpedo boats, seized by the Italians in 1942 and by the Germans in 1943. As the French also classed them as torpedo boats, it seems reasonable to call them torpedo boats (and were rather small for destroyers by WW2 standards anyway.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigel. I've no need to alter any wikilinks then. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Armed priests and other anomalies that defy our categories

this article defies assignment to category, although for now I've added it to biography. Any suggestions? auntieruth (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Communications and Information Services Corps also defies our categories. It doesn't fit into any of the task forces (nations and regions), but I've put it in Scitech auntieruth (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

National militaries task force would be a better bet. All military units and formations can be characterised under that TF. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I couldn't find a TF that was appropriate for the CCSC (it's Irish). The doesn't have a nation. auntieruth (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

National militaries is not a regional task force. "This task force includes the core articles which cover currently operational national armed forces (e.g. the United States Armed Forces) and their individual service branches (e.g. the Russian Navy)." As far as I'm concerned, any components of any currently operating militaries fall under the task force. That includes the CCSC. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

CCSC kind of sounds like Signal Corps (United States Army), which also manages communications and infoprmation systems.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

denoting death outside action in infobox

The infobox in American-led intervention in Syria has a dagger next to King Abdullah Al Saud, but he didn't die in action:

King Abdullah Al Saud †

How should this be represented? Is there an abbreviation for dying of natural causes while a leader is in command? -- Aronzak (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have the feeling that it is a cross, which raises further issues.--Catlemur (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we need a contextless, easily mis-identifiable icon in the infobox that requires specialist knowledge to interpret, or can we just explain it in the text and trust that people are intelligent enough to conclude that someone who has died (for whatever reason) is consequently no longer in command after their death. If His Majesty's natural death had a major impact in the event, explain it in the lead instead. -- saberwyn 07:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

King Abdullah Al Saud, along with figures like Barack Obama and Stephen Harper seems to be a formality - as they aren't involved in the conflict in any way, but are technically the formal heads of the military. Most of these heads of state just delegate to the military without ever being in the field or near it. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it still standard convention to use a cross to denote death, even if the person wasn't a Christian? Is the crescent moon ever used in a similar manner? --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

IMO, explaining in the text is preferable. I don't care about the potential religious issue, myself. I'm more concerned about a lack of context for any symbol, & the prospect of it being overlooked completely. (I'm far from sure I'd notice it...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Note, it's a dagger, not a crucifix - the dagger should use a serif font face when used. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

77th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Does anyone know what the 77th Division (ex-Devon and Cornwall County Division) was doing between November 1941 and December 1942? I presume, like its Norfolk counterpart, it was retaining its County Division duties of being an anti-invasion formation manning coastal defenses etc, yet i have not been able to find anything that states this. A little help would be appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: The British official history The Defence of the United Kingdom has a map showing where the division was located in May 1942 and some material on what the country divisions were doing at this time (though it doesn't seem to specifically mention the 77th): [1]. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I will check it out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Does someone want to check Draft:Thomas William Fitzpatrick out? It needs a lot of cleanup! Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also Draft:Bloomsbury Rifles. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Auto ed

Does anyone know why it doesn't go off if it's clicked after editing the page? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Keith-264 (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about this script, but perhaps try asking Plastikspork or Drilnoth. Hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible duplicate article - First battle of El Djorf and Battle of Al jurf

Gday. An new article stub has recently been created for the Battle of Al jurf which apparently took place in September 1955 during the Algerian revolution. I'm not an expert on this field but it seems to cover the same topic as an existing article - First battle of El Djorf. Can someone with some knowledge in this area pls have a look? If it is we will probably need to merge them. If so which is the correct name? etc... Anotherclown (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe both may be WP:HOAX or at the very least WP:PROPAGANDA. No English language sources are provided and the 2 links on First battle of El Djorf are dead. I have checked Alistair Horne's A Savage War of Peace and on page 142 he refers to Bachir Chihani's headquarters at Djeurf being surrounded by French troops in September 1955, he refused to break out and lost most of his escorts, all their weapons and numerous documents [2]. The French apparently dynamited the caves in which he was hiding and he was trapped inside for 6 days. Subsequently he was executed by his ALN superiors. Horne doesn't mention 400 French troops being killed or 8 aircraft lost as claimed on First battle of El Djorf or 700 soldiers killed plus tanks destroyed as claimed on Battle of Al jurf (although the only source given doesn't state such losses), which would have been extraordinarily high casualties for the French to suffer, as they enjoyed superiority in most engagements. Google search to find other sources for the battle just repeat the Wikipedia page Mztourist (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Gday - thanks for checking this. Ack the POV issues. As it was a poorly ref'd stub anyway and it now seems fairly clear that it dealt with the same topic as an existing article I've just been bold and redirected the latest article - Battle of Al jurf) - to the existing one - First Battle of El Djorf. If there is an objection I will self revert and discuss. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Military rocket engines

FYI, there is a notice at Template talk:Rocket Engines that may be of interest to this project -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Input requested at two RfCs.

Greetings. This is just to advertise two RfCs:

• Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#RfC:_Role_of_Sayeret_Matkal_in_the_article
• Talk:1982_Lebanon_War#RfC:_1000_Lebanese_killed.3F

Input from editors here would be great. It gets boring sometimes to see all the same WP:ARBPIA people commenting (not that I have anything against them). Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

These Texans are on a quest to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of their state's revolution

Hi all, I have another blog post up about the difficulties of writing a big-picture FA. Feedback is always welcome! (or praise, because I can pass that on to my bosses ;-) ) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

High-volume disambiguation pages.

Greetings! The following disambiguation pages on this month's list of most-linked pages are relevant to this WikiProject. Any help in fixing incoming links would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Battle of El Alamein: 9 links
2. Rus'–Byzantine War: 9 links - Done, down to 2 (possibly unavoidable) GermanJoe (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
3. Greco-Turkish War: 8 links - Done GermanJoe (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
4. Opium Wars: 8 links
5. Siege of Inverness: 8 links

What about links to Battles of El Alamein? There are some cases, such as service records (see Idwal Pugh's infobox), where both battles of El Alamein are meant. It would be wrong to make this merely a single link. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that Battle of El Alamein would be better off made a redirect to Second Battle of El Alamein and the current disambiguation page renamed Battle of El Alamein (disambiguation). Most people mean the second battle when they refer to the Battle of El Alamein. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, reading articles that pipe the link to the battle down to just "El-Alamein", it is the second that is linked. So I'll back a redirect to 2nd, and a hatnote for the 1st. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that per WP:INTDABLINK, if a link intentionally points to a disambiguation page, then it must be piped through a "(disambiguation)" redirect (for example [[Battle of El Alamein (disambiguation)|Battles of El Alamein]]). In this case, however, I am not sure that a disambiguation page is needed at all. The page could be redirected as proposed above, or alternately redirected to El Alamein#World War II, since that article section already contains everything in the disambiguation page. The same applies to Siege of Inverness; intentional links should pipe through [[Siege of Inverness (disambiguation)|Siege of Inverness]]. In this case, however, I would be inclined to say that rather than having a disambiguation page, the page should be moved to List of sieges of Inverness, since the topics are not unrelated. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Stopping an AK-47 Bullet

This link may be a bit off-topic, but likely interesting to member of this project. (links to YouTube video)

• "How Many iPhones Does It Take to Stop an AK-47 Bullet?", June 30, 2015 dailymail.com.ng. 220 of ^Borg 03:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds expensive! Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • How many with a Bible app open? —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Is there a military version 'ruggedised' I-Phone? (Kevlar case?) And what about a Koran or Talmud app? (per Wp:NPOV) - 220 of ^Borg 11:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

How far away do you have to be for this to work? (Hollywood screenwriters need to know, so they can ignore it. ;p ) And does it work as well with a bent iPhone? ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Eyes needed

• Talk:German declaration of war against the United States (1941)#STRONGLY disagree with point that declaration not in Germany's self interest and
• Talk:German declaration of war against the United States (1941)#Hitler had no choice.
• The article itself could use some attention as well. BMK (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov: real person or Soviet propaganda?

At the suggestion of The ed17, I'm bringing this matter to the experts here. A recent news article discusses how Armenian Wikipedians have discovered that Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov may be a Soviet propaganda creation. The English Wikipedia article discusses him as a real person, but every single one of the cited sources is in Russian. I have no idea where to even begin looking into this, but I assume many of you do. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To start with, I've added the 'hoax' tag to the article and copied the above section to its talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I advised Gamaliel to bring it here because people will actually see it. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust an Armenian newspaper article on an Azerbaijani war hero. Apparently the person making the discovery is the editor of Wikipedia. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a page on the French Wikipedia which, after being blessed with a Google translation, seems to indicate some French references. Maybe one of us who understands French should take a look at the refs, which have been flagged as needing improvement.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:POTD/2015-07-27

Hi everyone. Our POTD for the 27th of July is the Bombing of Hamburg. I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at Template:POTD/2015-07-27 and check the blurb for errors. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: That blurb should be pulled - it's a POV-pushing disaster (it seems to reflect the wartime propaganda line rather than modern scholarship). It presents the bombing as largely focused on military-related sites, and implies that the firestorm on 27 July was not intended. In actuality, the Allies (including the USAAF) were targeting Hamburg's urban area and hoped to start a major firestorm. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's why I've asked for feedback; I'm not familiar with such issues. I've based the blurb on the article, which has the same issues you brought up. The paragraph starting "On the night of 27 July, shortly before midnight" does not state that the bombing deliberately lead to the firestorm and the lead says it was "a totally unexpected effect". The article's lead ("As a large port and industrial centre, Hamburg's shipyards, U-boat pens, and the Hamburg-Harburg area oil refineries were attacked throughout the war.", vs. "Hamburg, home of numerous shipyards, U-boat pens, and the Hamburg-Harburg area oil refineries, was a regular target of Allied strategic bombing missions" in the blurb) is actually more POV; the blurb says the city was targeted because of the installations, whereas the article says that the installations were targeted. Per your request I'll pull the blurb. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Crisco, and sorry if my comment was too strong (I'd assumed the blurb was taken from the file's record, which in turn was based on the wartime rationale). Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• No worries. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I went to take a look at the blurb, but it was gone, so I put a slightly rewritten version here just so I could say I did my part to help :)

Picture of the day

A US newsreel covering the Allied bombing of Hamburg, Germany, in World War II by the United States's Eighth Air Force. Hamburg, home of numerous shipyards, U-boat pens, and the Hamburg-Harburg area oil refineries, was a regular target of Allied strategic bombing missions. One of these missions, code-named Operation Gomorrah, was flown over a period of eight days in between 24 July and 3 August 1943. Initial missions saw the use of blockbuster and delayed action bombs and the introduction of new countermeasures against anti-aircraft guns. On the 27 July raid, unusually dry conditions and concentrated bombing created a firestorm which incinerated more than 21 square kilometres (8 sq mi) of the city. This was followed by two subsequent missions. Overall, the bombings killed 42,600 civilians, wounded 37,000, and destroyed much of the city.

Of particular note in this clip is the use of wartime news broadcasts such as this one as instruments of propaganda during World War II. As with most publications at the time, propaganda considerations resulted in an overall favorable slant towards the U.S. war effort.Video: United Newsreel

TomStar81, thanks for the addition. The reason I decided to pull the blurb was because the issues Nick pointed out permeate the article as well; to eliminate the POV problem, we'd need more than just a new blurb. That article would need some serious TLC, which I cannot provide with the limited Wikipedia time I have right now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Russian Winter"

"Russian Winter" the article about the effect of winter in Russia on warfare, is up for renaming, see talk:Russian Winter -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Although there was no consensus, it looks like the nominator has withdrawn the move request. Too bad, I kind of liked the General Winter option. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Crimean crisis"

A WP:BRD discussion is open on the topic of Crimean crisis, the discussion has been blanked before [3] so you may have to rollback a future blanking to participate -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Western Desert Campaign

A disagreement has arisen over the intro to the article. Feedback is requested at Talk:Western Desert Campaign#Request for opinions to break this deadlock. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Proper Sourcing & Copyright

I have a copy of a letter from Maj. Dewey Fournet to Maj. Keyhoe (both from the US military) that is listed as: CONFIDENTIAL: For Release to NICAP Officials Only. It's to a civilian organisation so it's not in the CIA online records, I appear to have access to something in hard copy that isn't digitised. Can I digitise it and use it as a reference from a reliable secondary source? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying what you have is not published somewhere? WP:OR says sources must be published.— Maile (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You should be able to scan it and post it to WikiDocuments and source it to that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's part of a collection of unclassified official documents, patents, and military reports from multiple countries which are in the book UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry. 99% of it is available already on the official government archives (the CIA, for instance, published everything they had online so you can pick it up), but I'm not sure about personal correspondence - even if it is between a man and an organisation. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• If it is published in a book, then there is no need for scanning and uploading part of it. Sources only available but not necessarily readily available per WP:SOURCEACCESS. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing tail number

Further information: 2015 Moncks Corner mid-air collision

OK, maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I can't find a serial number for the F-16 involved in Tuesday's mid-air collision over South Carolina. Can you help? Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• F-16C 96-0085 according to F-16.net http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/airframe-profile/4409/ MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks! Info added to article. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't that be 96-85. Leading zeros only needed to fill out the tail number, not the serial number, right? --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

C.J. Grisham

Hi. I'm interested in submitting military blogger C.J. Grisham to the DYK Wikiproject but was told it's too long and there may be some unreliable sources. Someone at the DYK Wikiproject suggested I try this project for help. I had to get a crash course on using wikicode to submit this to the AFC project and I'd appreciate if a regular editor could assist. Thanks. 72.74.202.74 (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That feedback sounds fair, and I'd add that the article also seems to be strongly biased in favour of Grisham and the causes he supports. Watch out for WP:PEACOCK language as well. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem rewriting the article. Could you provide some specific examples? 72.74.202.74 (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)