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 Tranche XXIV of the WikiProject coordinators has been elected. The October 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 • Siege of Breteuil • Breton Civil War, 1341 • Operation Matterhorn logistics Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Lockheed YF-22 • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. • Project Pluto • SMS Berlin Peer reviews Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Chunj • War of the Antiochene Succession Good article nominees Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Ekiokpagha • 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 • Mongol invasion of Khorasan • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Charles the Bold • James Alexander Ulio • Central Powers • Short Sunderland in New Zealand service • Te Pōrere Redoubts • Aromal Chekavar • Tumu Crisis • 1838 Mormon War • Mseilha Fort • SMS Albatross (1871) • Shō Hashi • Charles Brenton Fisk • HMS Savage (1910) • HMS Diamond (1816) • SMS Brummer (1884) • HMS Lively (1813) • Edward Caledon Bruce • Battle of Morlaix Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Haile Selassie • Joseph McCarthy Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (149,087) • only work on referencing and citation (43,219) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,591) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,913) • work on structure (31,952) • only work on structure (335) • work on grammar (8,187) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (33,019) • only work on supporting materials (1,292) • assessment (14) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (5) • assessment checklists added (1) • assessment checklists completed (5) • task forces added (5) • attention to task force coverage (654)

Milhistbot B-Class assessments

G'day all, Milhistbot has now been run over the unassessed article categories, and has thrown up about 1,800 articles that it thinks are B-Class. As agreed, we need human eyeballs to check these ones. Experienced assessors are encouraged to take a look at User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox6 and check a few of Milhistbot's B-Class assessments. Feel free to downgrade them if you consider they don't meet one or more the criteria, and provide feedback on any trends at User talk:MilHistBot. Please also delete any that you have checked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

What I've noticed so far, at least on the articles I've worked on, is that it checks B2 fairly easily, even when the "coverage" probably wouldn't satisfy the necessary level of quality for B. Kinda hard to automate that process though, since bots aren't exactly good at knowing what it is they don't know about a subject if all they can examine is the article text; and what counts as good coverage for, say, German submarine U-153 (1941) (random hypothetical example), is probably way less than for Mengistu Haile Mariam. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That is clearly one of the limitations of Milhistbot in doing this sort of assessment. I think once we've worked our way through the backlog, the dozen or so articles thrown up each month will be manageable. Hawkeye is posting them so they can be checked. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness Question

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/March Madness 2020

Ministry of Defence (Somalia)

Can some coding whiz help me with the defence ministers' table here? I would like the first column removed and the second row lined up with all the other rows. Many thanks in advance for your help. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: G'day, Buckshot, I hope you are well. I had a go at this. This is my change here: [1]. Is that what you were hoping for? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Seems to be fixed. Good luck to you all amid this COVID crisis. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Source review requested

G'day all, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Rösselsprung (1944)/archive1 (my nom) just needs a source review to get over the line. If you have a few spare minutes please take a look. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been done, thanks to Factotem. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Good article review needed for Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States

I nominated Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States for a Good Article Review. WP:MILHIST is an interested WikiProject for the article. If you (anyone reading this) could conduct the GA review, that would be awesome! :0) I nominated it under the Culture, sociology and psychology subtopic. If you have not conducted a good article review before, take a look at the good article reviewer instructions to see what is involved. If you decide to conduct the review (thank you!), please be sure to read Markworthen/Veterans-benefits-GA-nom where I provide some important history/background info about the article, e.g., 2015 SME (subject matter experts) review; WP:MILHIST's very helpful advice, including superb suggestions from AustralianRupert; 2015 GA nomination feedback; 2019 Peer Review; 2020 Guild of Copy Editors review, etc. Much appreciated   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Notability question

Does Caspar Goodrich pass notability? All I see is that there was a ship named after him and his father, and he was only a lieutenant, doesn't seem to have gotten wide coverage anywhere. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It does not seem notable to me. I vote for PRODing or AfDing the article. I question if a ship would be named for both his father, Rear Admiral Goodrich AND for Lieutenant Caspar Goodrich. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

DANFS confirms it was named after both, but I don't think that confers notability on the son, the father is notable due to rank. I would PROD it in the first instance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Help re-assessing Milhist Indian task force articles copyedited by the GOCE

G'day all, GOCE are conducting a one week blitz focussed on our Indian task force articles with b4=n. They are making big inroads in the 63 articles in that category. Their progress is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/April 2020. If you have a chance, could you take a look at the ones that have been done and re-assess them, particularly against b4, but more generally. I've done the the articles completed up to now, but another couple of editors taking a look each day would be great. The blitz ends on the 18th. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Aircraft inventory table on air force pages

Should table of "current inventory", commonly found in Air Force pages which list air force's aircraft inventory, allowed to be filled by aircraft with "on order" status (not in the inventory yet but will be, as the contract have been signed). Ckfasdf (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Air Force pages (or it's derivatives such as list of aircraft of xxx air force pages or equipment of xxx air forces pages) usually contain "Current Inventory" table. As an air force editor along with FOX 52, both of us have history on updating those table. Recently, I have disagreement with him regarding whether aircraft "on order" status should be included on that table or not.

I propose not to include aircraft "on order". The main rationale is name of table itself, which is "Current Inventory", So it put heavy emphasis on "Current" fleet. Not future. Not "soon will be" inventory. Those "on order" aircraft can be added once they are delivered. And most of the time information on aircraft "on order" already covered on other section (sometimes named "Plan" or "Future" section), so there is possible redundancy on that topics.
Note:I also used to add "on order" aircraft into that table, but got my edit reverted due to above reason [2]. FOX's edit also have history to get reverted for the same reason [3]

Since discussion between only two us may not reach any conclusion. I hope I can have other insight on this issue. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagree partly as it's done on the air frame pages themselves ie: Bell UH-1Y, AH-1Z, CASA C-295, AW139, CH-47, JAS 39 Gripen... -Based off WP: AIR OPS it states in part "Do not place potential operators in this section, only confirmed orders with likelihood of near-term production" Those air frames are in these tables, making the two points interchangeable. I agree when it comes to "potential" or "planned orders", that goes to far. FOX 52 (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

IMO, WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS only applies for aircraft/airframe pages. Lead section of that guidelines essays even says This is a set of suggested guidelines for articles on specific aircraft types. Therefore it should not applies to Air Force pages (and its relatives) and lead to discussion here. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Using the example of Lebanese Air Force, I think it is reasonable to include the MD500 Defender in the current inventory table as it is a short article in terms of air force articles - it does not contain a Planned or Future acquisitions section. Some air forces articles do not contain such section and adding "on order" is a concise way of including this information in a article. The inclusion is not confusing the "In service" column is empty and the "Notes" column explains it is on order. What is reasonable depends on each article. Including it for all articles presents the information easier to a reader and also allows for comparison to other aircraft types. --Melbguy05 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that aircraft "on order" should not be included. Even if there's no specific section for planned acquisitions or future procurement, you can always reference the aircraft order on the History section. -- Get_It (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Tom Moore

Many of you will have seen Tom Moore (soldier) in the news; he is fundraising for NHS charities and has (so far) raised £7.85 million. Perhaps some of you can flesh out his military record, and add the medals he is seen wearing in [4]? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

1939–1945 Star, Burma Star, War Medal 1939-1945. Woody (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have added a few wikilinks to the article. Some details of the 9th DWR are in Valentine Infantry Tank 1938–45 (p. 92)]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

But there's conflicting information in The Fighting Tykes: An Informal History of the Yorkshire Regiments in the Second World War which says that the 9th (146 RAC) didn't arrive in Burma until "the end of 1944" and took part in the Battle of Ramree Island, too late for our Arakan Campaign 1942–43 article. Alansplodge (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Article amended per the "Fighting Tykes" article. Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added some detail from the Gazette relating to his early career with the Duek of Wellington's Regiment, but have found nothing from after his transfer to the Royal Armoured Corps - Dumelow (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing medal entitlements from photographs is essentially OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I take your point, but given that the qualification for the Burma Star is "1 day of operational service in the army in the above qualifying areas [i.e. Burma]", the War Medal 1939-1945 "is awarded to all full time personnel of the armed forces wherever they were serving" and the 1939 to 1945 Star "is awarded to personnel who completed operational service overseas between 3 September 1939 and 8 May 1945 (2 Sept 1945 in Far East)", [5] and we have several references that he fought in the Burma Campaign, then those are the medals that he would inevitably have been awarded: Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Alansplodge (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. All of the medals should be able to be attributed to specific text. We don't have a cite photograph template for a reason. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Destubathon

Would there be interest in a military history destubathon contest sometime in the future? It would be along the lines of Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon , that might help the project cut down on the 51,000+ military history stubs... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely. In my areas, there are dozens of American and Russian military unit and person stubs that can be expanded. Kges1901 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, sounds great. There are plenty of stubs that could be easily brought up to a higher class. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• We did a backlog drive in September last year and again in March this year, maybe a stubathon this September? Might be nice to mix it up a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• That sounds good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• @WP:MILHIST coordinators: , any contrary views? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

None here. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• I was already wondering when this idea will pop up here. We have over 50,000 stubs and it might be time to reduce them like our missing B-class checklist campaign last year. It also can be a great ending of our terms before a new term would start. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would be in favour of a stubathon in Sept. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think a destubathon would be a fun change to the normal drives. If @Zawed wants to turn everything into stubs during a stubathon I guess I could help too. --Molestash (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It might make sense to get a project page up and running soon(ish) so people could start organizing the front page with potential resources and stub listings, though there's obviously no rush seeing as September is a long ways away. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Article Question

Hi all, I'm a copyeditor for the Guild, participating in the Blitz focusing on Milhist-themed articles. As part of the blitz, I'm working on the article Modern Sub Machine Carbine, but was wondering if it should be Modern Submachine Carbine. (Two words to one). Before I moved it, I thought I'd ask y'all to see if there is some consensus to keep it two words. Thanks! --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 21:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Puddleglum2.0, it appears this is a proper name (given the use of the name and initialisation MSMC throughout and in the sources). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 14:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

WW1 Casualties

Can somebody please do a quick review of the World War I casualties article and see if it is worthy of [6] such a warning? User:The Banner insists that there is an issue (namely the inclusion of events not pertaining to WW1, and his claim is disputed by me), and it would be helpful if an expert can resolve the confusion. 2601:85:C101:BA30:8560:48BC:2A07:81B0 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

My doubts about the reliability is part due to his earlier attempts to make the 1917 Potato riots in Amsterdam (in neutral The Netherlands) and the Easter Rising in Ireland part of the war. Recently the was discussion about the Austro-Hungarian casualties, in which he and somebody else used different versions of the same book resulting in conflicting/unclear numbers. Other instances he made part of the war were the Armenian Genocide, the Maritz rebellion, the 1915 Singapore Mutiny, the Finnish Civil War and many others. Criticism is often countered with annoying behaviour (see this, he has now jumped to his third IP). To my opinion everything has to back fact-checked, or all his edits have to be reverted (this includes his edits with the IP 98.something). The Banner talk 09:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Banner has misstated what's going on. I admit I made an honest mistake with the 1917 Potato riots, and when the Banner brought that issue up, and he was right, I removed it from the chart. The Easter Rising is another matter, which I also removed per his requests. But the Armenian Genocide was part of the losses since before I started editing this page around October (I think) of last year. I have never made any edits regarding the Maritz rebellion, I was only asking in the talk page if the losses there were already in the chart Talk:World War I casualties (because I thought there was a possible discrepancy). I did add losses regarding the Singapore mutiny (since it was part of the Hindu-German conspiracy, and is also in the Template:Campaignbox Asian and Pacific Campaign), and I did add losses regarding the Finnish Civil War because it is considered "part of World War I" in the infobox, and because military losses for Russia only go up to 1917, and thus did not include Finland in 1918. My question still stands, can someone review the article to see if it matches up with Wikipedia standards? 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The sheer fact that you brought them up was enough to sow some serious doubt. Just a look at your own talk page is enough to see how many people disagreed with your actions: User talk:98.221.136.220. And also Talk:Easter_Rising#Not_part_of_World_War_1, where you tried to prove your point (and failed). The Banner talk 18:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't get rid of the fact that you outright lied by saying that I added the Armenian Genocide and Maritz rebellion to the chart. 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2, can we WP:AGF please! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The number of dissenting views is a non sequitur, it isn't a beauty contest; what do the RS say? Keith-264 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ask the Banner to WP:AGF as well please. Keith-264, I provided reliable sources (and that can be reviewed of course) for every edit I made. If my edits violated some policy that I am unaware of, please WP:AGF, and I would welcome changes and revisions to the article. I think what Banner is driving at is that the article needs to be reviewed by the experts here from this Wikiproject. 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I indeed asked a fact check en full review as I do not think the article in the present state is reliable. The Banner talk 18:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, the Banner is "taking issue" with "my" inclusion of the Armenian Genocide, as well as the Maritz rebellion, the Finnish Civil War, and the Singapore Mutiny. Firstly, I was not the one that added the Armenian Genocide into the article. Secondly, I never made any edits on the page regarding the Maritz rebellion, although it actually is part of the South West Africa Campaign of WW1. Thirdly, the Singapore Mutiny is listed in the Template:Campaignbox Asian and Pacific Campaign for WW1, so I'm not the one serendipitously making these connections. And lastly, the Finnish Civil War literally says "part of WW1" in the infobox. Yet the Banner accuses me of wrongly claiming these as part of the war, when in fact other users have already determined them to be part of the war. I'm honestly struggling to assume good faith with the Banner's attacks. And it is factually incorrect (to use a euphemism) to say that I made these events part of WW1. Other users have. 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

After all your harassment this sounds rather dubious. And in fact, you take infoboxes and campaign boxes as solid proof, instead of the sources. The Banner talk 22:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been harassing you. Assume good faith. And I don't take infoboxes as solid proof, I'm just saying that these connections which you falsely (I think the word is lie, to be honest) claim I'm making weren't made by me. Other people edited the campaignboxes. Why must I be to blame for their alleged errors? And what sources are you talking about that support anything you say? I've provided a source for every edit I've made. 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• As far as the wiki pages and campaign boxes mentioned in this discussion, these are user generated and are not reliable sources by themselves. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Thus I am not the one originally claiming that they are part of WW1. Other users have. If other users incorrectly made a connection with the war, it isn't my fault necessarily. And if those infoboxes need to be changed, fair enough, just don't blame me. And I will reiterate that I provided sources for every edit I made on the page. If someone would like to check those sources, be my guest. IMO, the Banner may make claims about wording such as "related to," "part of," etc., but he never engages with me on the WW1 casualties talk page, never specifically delineates what exactly warrants inclusion or exclusion, and invariably resorts to simply mocking me, such as here Talk:World War I casualties#Unreliable: "... goody. Houston, we have a problem." Banner, or anyone else for that matter, what exactly is part of WW1 for you? Can you even answer that question without making a derogatory quip? 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the article bibliography comprehensive and reliable? Are there any sources not used which also meet those criteria? Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of sources I used for my edits. It might not be complete (it is lengthy though) because I've made many edits, but it's about as many as I can remember. One or two were already present on the article (which I'll label with an asterisk), some I found on other language versions of Wikipedia, the rest I added:

• "Narrative of Their Doings in the Mutiny". The Straits Times. 26 April 1915. p. 12. (46 mutineers killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny)
• Farwell, Bryon (1992), Armies of the Raj: From the Great Indian Mutiny to Independence, 1858–1947, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-30802-2 p. 244 (47 mutineers executed after the 1915 mutiny)
• Strachan, Hew (2001), The First World War, I: To Arms, Oxford University Press USA, ISBN 0-19-926191-1 p. 802
• http://www.rmslusitania.info/people/lusitania-victims/ (2 Indians killed in sinking of the Lusitania)
• Doran, Christine (April 2002). "Gender Matters in the Singapore Mutiny". Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia. 17 (1). (16 civilians killed in 1915 Singapore Mutiny)
• Donato, Hernâni "Dicionário das Batalhas Brasileiras" ('Dictionary of Brazilian Battles') (in Portuguese) IBRASA 1987 ISBN 8534800340 Page 153
• Francisco Verras; "D.N.O.G.: contribuicao da Marinha Brasileira na Grande Guerra" ("DNOG; the role of Brazilian Navy in the Great War") (in Portuguese) "A Noite" Ed. 1920
• (*)Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. (98 civilians killed during Siege of Tsingtao)
• Doran, Christine (April 2002). "Gender Matters in the Singapore Mutiny". Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia. 17 (1). (3 civilians killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny)
• Steamer Chaparra, in: uboat.net.
• Abbott, G. F. (2008). Greece and the Allies 1914–1922. London: Methuen &Co. ISBN 978-0-554-39462-6. Page 160-161.
• Damianos Athanasiou (10 July 2014). "Εγινε χθες η παρασημοφόρηση της ένδοξης σημαίας της 1/38 Διοίκησης Ταγμάτων Εθνοφυλακής Ευζώνων (φωτορεπορτάζ)". Dimokratiki.gr. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
• Η Ελλάς του 1910-1920, Γεωργίου Βεντήρη: Αθήνα 1931, Identifier: 000074165, σ.σ.106-131 (listing 12k Greek civilians killed during Bulgarian occupation during WW1)
• "Tα ξεχασμένα Νοεμβριανά". Kathimerini (in Greek). 18 November 2006. Archived from the original on 20 July 2011. Retrieved 18 August 2009. (35 killed during the Noemvriana)
• https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/caribbean-theater-haiti-and-first-world-war
• Shellum, Brian G. African American Officers in Liberia: A Pestiferous Rotation, 1910-1942. University of Nebraska Press, 2018, pp. 108.
• "Commission Calls 1916 Tsarist Mass Killings Of Kyrgyz Genocide". Radio Free Europe.
• Sokol, Edward Dennis (26 June 2016). The Revolt of 1916 in Russian Central Asia. JHU Press. p. 158. ISBN 9781421420516.
• Whyte, Brendan; Whyte, Suthida (2008). "THE INSCRIPTIONS ON THE FIRST WORLD WAR VOLUNTEERS MEMORIAL, BANGKOK" (PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. 96: 175–192. Retrieved 29 August 2018.
• Traxel, David (2006). Crusader Nation: The United States in Peace and the Great War, 1898-1920. Random House, Inc., New York. ISBN 9780375724657
• "THE BLACK TOM EXPLOSION.; FOUR BODIES FOUND THE SUPERINTENDENT MISSING". The New York Times. 18 January 1875. Retrieved 5 June 2019.
• (*)Prost, Antoine: War Losses, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• "Causes of war death 1918 according to the political affiliation of the killed persons". War victims in Finland, 1914-22. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
• The Blockade of Germany after the Armistice 1918–1919 Bane, S.L. 1942 Stanford University Press page 791. (100,000 deaths in 1919 during the continuation blockade)
• Gregory, Adrian (2016). "Imperial Capitals at War: A Comparative Perspective". The London Journal. 41 (3): 219–232. (Ottoman civilians killed by Allied strategic bombing)
• "Six unexpected WW1 battlegrounds". BBC World Service. BBC. 26 November 2014. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
• Schatkowski Schilcher, Linda: The famine of 1915-1918 in Greater Syria, in: Spagnolo, John P. (ed.): Problems of the modern Middle East in historical perspective, Ithaca 1993: Cornell University Press, pp. 229-258.
• Tucker, Spencer C. (2006). World War I: A Student Encyclopedia. New York: ABC-CLIO. p. 113. ISBN 9781851098798.
• Bjarnason, Gunnar Þór (2015). Þegar siðmenningin fór til fjandans. Íslendingar og stríðið mikla 1914–1918. pp. 236–38, 288–89.
• Faber, Ernest (1932). Luxemburg im Kriege 1914–1918 (in German). Mersch. p. 155.
• Lith, Hans van. Plotseling een vreselijke knal. Zaltbommel: Europese Bibliotheek, 2001, pp. 176–177. (862 fisherman killed by the German U-boat Campaign)
• Lith, Hans van. Plotseling een vreselijke knal, pp. 91–95. (3 civilians killed by accidental British bombing)
• http://www.rmslusitania.info/people/lusitania-victims/ (persian civilians killed on the lusitania)
• Ward, Steven R. (2014). Immortal, Updated Edition: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 9781626160651., p.123: "As the Great War came to its close in the fall of 1918, Iran's plight was woeful. The war had created an economic catastrophe, invading armies had ruined farmland and irrigation works, crops and livestock were stolen or destroyed, and peasants had been taken from their fields and forced to serve as laborers in the various armies. Famine killed as many as two million Iranians out of a population of little more than ten million while an influenza pandemic killed additional tens of thousands."
• "Olof Palme (1884 -1918). Mannen som kunde ha blivit en svensk fascistledare". Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish). 26 November 1995. Retrieved 3 January 2016.
• "Name lists on war victims". War victims in Finland, 1914-22. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
• "Gefallen 1916 an der Dreisprachenspitze". www.suedostschweiz.ch (in German). Retrieved 9 December 2018.

That is every source I have added. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F1E3:ADCE:985E:A4DB (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

So you speak Dutch, Swedish, German and Greek? Or did you just copy away? And about calculating, see this. I will not respond for a couple of day, as this joking is getting under my skin. The Banner talk 18:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, another meaningless comment by a user that delights in harassing. Does anyone else have a comment, negative or positive, about the sources? 2601:85:C101:BA30:F412:D64B:B959:89A6 (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Award citations

I noticed that a number of articles on recipients of some awards such as the Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross give the full, often lengthy citation. For example, in Bennie G. Adkins that's about as much prose as the rest of the article combined. For other awards such as Hero of the Soviet Union, the various grades of the Legion of Honor or the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross no citations appear to be given (at least I couldn't find any examples). I wonder whether, firstly, there is a rationale why the citations appear to only be given for awards by English-speaking countries, and secondly, whether the citations shouldn't be considered problematic in general since a large part of those articles is based on a single primary source instead of on secondary sources as articles generally should be. For the Param Vir Chakra there might even be copyright issues since at least the website cited as a source for Manoj Kumar Pandey says that permission must be obtained by mail, which isn't compatible with CC BY-SA. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Such citations are normally quoted when they are available, but this is not always the case. The citation length can vary greatly, even for the same award. There are no copyright issues; text can be quoted under fair use. See WP:COPYQUOTE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree, citations are usually quoted where available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007

Korean Air Lines Flight 007, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Women as warriors

There is a discussion about whether to remove the section of the article Warrior on women warriors on the talk page. The section isn't a fine specimen of encyclopaedic writing and legitimately could be culled as a bold edit but it will leave a coverage hole. There is material to fill this out there but I'm not interested enough in the article (which could do with a total rewrite) to tackle it at present. Any assistance welcome. Monstrelet (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Potential issues with US Medal of Honor citations

You guys might want to take a look at Talk:Donald Sloat#Medal of Honor citation. It seems very possible we may have similarly-incorrect citations for other MoH recipients whose articles were sourced from that same army.mil page. And looking into this issue is complicated by the fact that nearly every one of our articles on Vietnam-era recipients that includes the citation (Webster Anderson, to pick one of many examples) cites it to broken links at [7] or [8]. -Elmer Clark (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately the ACMH seems to have reordered/hidden many of its resources. Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Page movements

Komić killings and Golubić killings both seem to have been moved from Komić massacre and Golubić massacre, by 3E1I5S8B9RF7 with the comment "Not labelled as massacre by reliable sources". However, both articles still start with "The ____ massacre". Could someone with knowledge of the topic weigh in on whether it should be called a massacre or not? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: You might be able to help? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There are few reliable sources on these two events, but Balkan Insight [9] [10] uses "killings" in both instances. The indictments called them murders. I think killings is fine, the lead and body text needs to be changed to reflect the titles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the term "battle for the railways" used in English historiography for WWII sabotage?

In Polish historiography there's a term pl:Bitwa o szyny (battle for the railways), referring to the sabotage of the communication (primarily, rail) infrastructure by the partisans against the Nazis during WWII. But I can't seem to find a corresponding term in the English literature? What would be a good English name for such a stub if I was to create it (or does it already exist)? Use Polish term, effectively introducing it to the English discourse, or use descriptive term such as Railway sabotage during World War II? (Sample RS in Polish: Krzysztof Komorowski (2009). Boje polskie 1939-1945: przewodnik encyklopedyczny. Bellona. pp. 40–. ISBN 978-83-11-10357-3.; Stanisław Kania (1986). Polska gwara konspiracyjno-partyzancka, 1939-1945. Państwowe Wydawn. Nauk. p. 130. ISBN 978-83-01-06619-2.; the term even is used in Polish encyclopedias Kazimierz Sobczak (1975). Encyklopedia II wojny światowej. Wydaw. Min. Obrony Narodowej. p. 70.; online so you can Machine Translate that one) Ps. I found the term War of the Rails used in the context of the Soviet partisans, Phillip W. Blood (October 2006). Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe. Potomac Books, Inc. pp. 101–. ISBN 978-1-59797-021-1., Alexander Hill (10 December 2008). The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1941-45: A Documentary Reader. Routledge. pp. 212–. ISBN 978-1-135-76526-2., Alexander Hill (2017). The Red Army and the Second World War. Cambridge University Press. pp. 281–. ISBN 978-1-107-02079-5., but Polish historiography uses it more broadly, certainly applying it to the actions of the Polish resistance, not just Soviet. My gut feeling is that the term originated in Soviet historiography, was translated into English at that point, and than got adapted in a wider meaning by the Polish historiography, but that's OR. Also, see The Battle of the Rails, a French movie about French WWII rail sabotage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing nothing much in English for "battle for the railways" or "battle of the railways" with regards to WWII sabotage, except in relation to the French movie. It has other uses, though, mostly in economic initiatives or corporate rivalries and the like. If you're writing an article on Railway sabotage during World War II in Poland, then go ahead and use the term Polish historiography uses. If you're writing one more broadly, I'd say stick with the descriptive term. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen this term used. English language works tend to refer to 'Railway sabotage in [country/region]', and I'd suggest using that formulation. I agree that it's a significant gap in our coverage. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I would interpret "Battle for the railways" in a military context as an offensive aimed at capturing the railway network (compare Battle for Henderson Field, Battle for the A-9 highway, Battle for Jalibah Airfield…) rather than as being about railway sabotage. I agree that "Railway sabotage in [area]" would be a less ambiguous term. ‑ Iridescent 09:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)

Does anyone know why sfn's with |ref=harv are getting CS1 error notices? Should they be replaced by |ref={{harvid|Some bloke|some date}} or removed altogether? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Keith-264, It appears that after an update |ref=harv became the CS1 default per this discussion, so the ending is redundant, and can be removed. Perhaps Trappist the monk can clarify if I'm mistaken. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Also see Help talk:Citation Style 1 § make ref=harv the default for CS1 Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Always a good place to look for answers to cs1|2 questions is WT:CS1. |ref=harv is now the default state for all cs1|2 templates so the |ref=harv parameter-value pair is superfluous. The maint cat is there so that editors can find where |ref=harv is used and either remove that parameter or choose a more appropriate value.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, if there are several authors will it make a difference? Keith-264 (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. With or without |ref=harv, cs1|2 templates will build an anchor ID from the first four contributor, or author, or editor surnames (in that order but never mixed) and the year portion of the |date= parameter. Assuming same capitalization, same spelling, same name-order, and same year, the short-form templates will create a link to the full citation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

When I tried ref = harv with more than one author I couldn't make it work but that was in the past, it might be different now because the change , I'll have a go. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You may get warnings when anchors are not required, as in the section above. Use |ref=none to suppress this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the ref = { { harvid | some bloke | some date} } I've looked at don't have CS1 warnings; is that something that will change? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The maint messages are not warnings. They are merely messages that the templates emit so that editors will know where to find those template that have superfluous |ref=harv parameter/value pairs. Because |ref={{sfnref|<name>|<year}} is not |ref=harv, the templates don't emit any messages about that. Usually |ref={{sfnref|<name>|<year}} is not needed; the link from a properly formed short-form template to a cs1|2 template with matching names and date will work fine without {{sfnref}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ta but I've never written sfnref, only sfn. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

{{sfnref}} is the canonical name for {{harvid}} (a redirect).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

GA reassessment: Outremer

Outremer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)