Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Any assistance to add appropriate notations to the Chinese 64th Group Army to reflect its participation in this battle of October 1951 would be welcomed. Mztourist I see you have edited the battle article. Do feel free to make additions to 64th Army should you wish. Cheers and Happy New Year to all!!
Edit request for US Dep. SecDef Kathleen Hicks
Earlier in the month I posted an edit request at Talk:Kathleen Hicks seeking an editor to improve the article's accuracy, specifically regarding her status as the highest ranking woman to have served at DoD. Although the sourcing is unambiguous, I should not make the edit myself; I have a financial COI because I am working directly with the Hicks family. I'm hopeful an editor from this wikiproject will consider implementing it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions on that article's talk page. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your client's request seems vain. I once knew a Lance Coolie who was just happy to be a Lance Corporal of Marines. She can (rightly or wrongly) be proud of her career accomplishments. That she's paying you to advocate for changes to an online encyclopedia just to clarify for the audience how important she is certainly makes her out of touch with all those uniformed personnel subordinate to her. I guess getting paid to edit is better than not getting paid, so I cast no stones upon those who monetized their hobby. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: Oops. I just fulfilled the request; it seemed reasonable and upheld by the source. I admit I didn't read that^^^ to mean they were getting paid to edit specifically, but rather, that they had a broader connection. So it turns out: I am the fool, and a penniless one at that. ——Serial Number 54129 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the update, Serial. And I respect your view, Chris. What Wikipedia says matters, including to those it writes about. Perhaps it would be best if there was no need for someone in my role, but my intention is to propose only well-documented changes to content, and I always strive to make Wikipedia a better resource for its readers. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, my fees have suddenly gone up. Edits to DoD articles in return for freeing Leonard Peltier, cheap at twice the price. ¡Venceremos! ¡Por vida!" :) ——Serial Number 54129 19:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing against you, WWB. You were asked to propose a change and you did so. We can debate its relevance or importance but you provided reliable sources and no doubt some people will find it interesting (there wouldn't be reliable sources otherwise!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Whether or not there was money involved, Hicks was the first woman DepSecDef, and that is notable. Good point to make clearly, though just saying that she was first woman DepSecDef should have been clear years ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing against you, WWB. You were asked to propose a change and you did so. We can debate its relevance or importance but you provided reliable sources and no doubt some people will find it interesting (there wouldn't be reliable sources otherwise!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, my fees have suddenly gone up. Edits to DoD articles in return for freeing Leonard Peltier, cheap at twice the price. ¡Venceremos! ¡Por vida!" :) ——Serial Number 54129 19:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for making the update, Serial. And I respect your view, Chris. What Wikipedia says matters, including to those it writes about. Perhaps it would be best if there was no need for someone in my role, but my intention is to propose only well-documented changes to content, and I always strive to make Wikipedia a better resource for its readers. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: Oops. I just fulfilled the request; it seemed reasonable and upheld by the source. I admit I didn't read that^^^ to mean they were getting paid to edit specifically, but rather, that they had a broader connection. So it turns out: I am the fool, and a penniless one at that. ——Serial Number 54129 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Earlier in the week I posted another edit request on Kathleen Hicks' article, and since no one has replied yet, figured I might as well post again here. The article currently omits an important presidentially appointed position, and certain board roles are out-of-date. If anyone here is willing to review my proposed changes, I'd be grateful. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Your input is requested at the above discussion. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel#Requested move 13 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Referencing question
Hello all - I hope to solicit the group's advice on a referencing question.
I'm continuing a small series of articles I'm writing on the interwar Czechoslovak Gendarmerie with one on Jan Klán, a Gendarmerie fighter ace. After WWII, Klán worked for a specialized agency of the U.S. while holding the job description "international sales manager" for Piper Aircraft at the company's offices in South America and Europe.
This (the part about his work for the U.S.), unfortunately, is not documented in any source and, per our WP:V requirements I need to simply say he worked for Piper and leave it at that. However, I happened across an obit (it's a paid obit so is WP:SELFPUB) that obliquely says he "served the United States government in sensitive positions in Europe and South America". Do you think this line from the obit (cited to the obit instead of Wikivoice) is reasonable to just drop in a footnote as I have it here? Or should I omit it entirely? Thanks for your advice! Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would leave it as it is. Technically, unless he wrote his own obituary, I would not consider it self-published. I think it is not an exceptional claim from a questionable source, which is also shown under this section in the guideline. I can't think of a reason why a survivor would make such a claim if it was bogus. You are not drawing any conclusions by simply citing the text. (The implication that one would presumably make is that he was a spy, but neither the source nor your citation says that outright.) I do think that putting in a footnote in the form which you used is appropriate as full disclosure. If others differ, I hope they will comment. Donner60 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Donner60 - thanks very much for this feedback. It sounds like your line of thought here is parallel to my own. It's helpful for me to get this validation to make sure I'm not cutting some corners too closely. Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Resolve the issue
There is a potential edit warring going at Prince Salim's Invasion of Mewar, and I am afraid that I might get involved. The user misunderstood the final outcome of the campaign with the intermediate outcome and reverts the edit continuously. I made citations for the final outcome, the user reverted it claiming that they provided contradiction to the outcome at the talk page, but infact it was the result of the intermediate conflicts. Please come forward to resolve the issue. Thanks Imperial[AFCND] 10:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Requested deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War
There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.--Imperial[AFCND] 07:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Kaunas Fortress
Kaunas Fortress has been nominated for a 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Arrow-class gunvessel and Bonetta-class sloop
Should ARA Bermejo and ARA Pilcomaijo be added to the respective articles. From The Times of 21 June 1875 ("A Formidable Gunboat". The Times. No. 28347. London. 21 June 1875. col F, p. 8.) - "The Bermejo and Pilcomaijo are of the Arrow and Bonetta class." Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for George Rogers Clark National Historical Park
George Rogers Clark National Historical Park has been nominated for a 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. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I think I have a prescriptive/descriptive issue - and how sources can be used
The question is over the use of a term. I could link to the particular issue but I'd like to get an abstract answer that is applicable in other articles.
If a 'thing' has an official name but it is commonly called by another name, then it seems right that if the unofficial usage is commonplace (and significantly so), then it seems right to include this in the article as its probably a term a reader will recognise (or may be looking for or expecting to see). In proving the usage of the unofficial name, official sources are unlikely to be supportive - you're not going to get the navy saying their latest warship is popularly known as the "grey shooty-shooty boat". So majority of evidence would be in the aggregate, here's a book with the term in the title, here's a book with it in the text on page 50, here's this website, that blog etc.
Having written that, the question I think I'm asking is how does one show popular usage of a term?. And how can one reference the usage concisely? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- How about "A (known as B)"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- That was how I wanted to phrase it but there was objection that the term was "not official" and used by "fanboys" (the word is used in the title of one of Ray Sturtivant's books FWIW ). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then try "A (popularly called B)" instead. Common names aren't always official, as anyone dealing with military history should know. There are any number of examples out there, honestly. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- You could also try "A, named in some sources as B," and then add a reference for B. If there are objections about references in the lead section, you can mention the alternate name in the article body and cite it there. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then try "A (popularly called B)" instead. Common names aren't always official, as anyone dealing with military history should know. There are any number of examples out there, honestly. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- That was how I wanted to phrase it but there was objection that the term was "not official" and used by "fanboys" (the word is used in the title of one of Ray Sturtivant's books FWIW ). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
"A (sometimes called B)" Someone will object whatever you choose. ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well. I've tried again with a ref to the RAF Museum that uses the term. Time will tell if it is reverted.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I just want to throw out the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark as a point for potential consideration here. "Aardvark" was only applied as the "official popular name" at the ceremony for retiring the aircraft from service. Not trying to use this example to argue for, or against. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point, this is an odd or rare one. The US retired the F-111 then, in 1996 and Australia followed in 2010. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I just want to throw out the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark as a point for potential consideration here. "Aardvark" was only applied as the "official popular name" at the ceremony for retiring the aircraft from service. Not trying to use this example to argue for, or against. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well. I've tried again with a ref to the RAF Museum that uses the term. Time will tell if it is reverted.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Bathurst-class main gun
The QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XXIII article has been edited to include Bathurst-class corvettes, specifically the museum ship HMAS Castlemaine, citing (in the edit summary) this YouTube video: HMAS Castlemaine - Wonderfully Preserved History by "Drachinifel", in which he reads a plaque on the gun identifying it as a Mk XXIII. However, our article on the Bathurst-class identifies the main gun as a QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XIX. I suspect that the plaque may be referring to the high-angle mounting, but can't find a reference to back this up. Can anybody help please? Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- According to this website Castlemaine's guns were removed post war. When it later underwent a refit to become a museum ship, a new QF 4 inch gun was installed. The new QF 4 inch isn't specified, but that could be the cause of the discrepancy. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Correction - while the new gun isn't specified, the page does mention an XXIII mounting was fitted in 1943. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Splendid, many thanks. I have reverted the edit and amended the HMAS Castlemaine article accordingly. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
