Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 98

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 08:24, 23 December 2010 (Archiving 4 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100→Archive 105

Template:Archive-nav

Drone attacks in Pakistan

I'm a bit concerned that either one or two editors are edit warring in this article to keep their personal running total of casualties in the infobox despite it sourcing what appears to be a reliable and regularly updated source which presents quite different figures. Comments from uninvolved editors at Talk:Drone attacks in Pakistan#Casualty figures would be great. Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has now been protected to allow for dispute resolution - comments from any interested editors would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Foggia in 1943 (World War II)

New article Bombing of Foggia in 1943 (World War II) may need attention as it appears to give a single POV. MilborneOne (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That article sure needs a lot of work: it's entirely unreferenced and appears to be the article creator's POV. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added a proposed deletion tag on the article with the reason Bombing is already mentioned in Foggia article no reason for a separate article which doesnt really add any reliable information.. If it the intention to cover every bombing operation in the war then please remove/challenge the prod but if you strip out the POV you dont have much more than in the Foggia article already. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for 766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea) now open

The featured article candidacy for 766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Almirante Latorre class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Almirante Latorre class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Inter-Service Training and Development Centre

Dear Community, I have begun a page for the above ISTDC. My first page started from scratch. Please look and see that it follows all the WikiProject Military etiquette. Any critique or corrections are most welcome. Do people just up and make pages? Thanks for your attention.AmesJussellR (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a decent start. Good work. I've made a few presentation tweaks, but I don't have any content knowledge or sources. Can anyone help with possible expansion? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions#Military_bases_and_facilities

A few more third opinions might be helpful here. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks eighth, with 18999 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Its only because of the amount of conversations and traffic this page draws. Comments and talk strings are archived constantly and currently this page is only 130k. --Kumioko (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Interstate TDR now open

The peer review for Interstate TDR is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

KIA/Surrender/Executed typography

The choice of typography of the following templates should be revisited. Marcus Qwertyus 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:KIA

I don't think there is enough wide-spread recognition of the dagger symbol for KIAs. The average reader just thinks it's a cross. (KIA) should be used instead. It sisters  (DOW) and  (POW) both use an acronym.

Template:Surrender

Depicts a white flag. Pretty hard to see. Suggestions?

Template:Executed

Depicts a skull and crossbones. Arbitrary image selection and still very hard to see. Noose or something would be better if it's available in unicode.

Re {{surrender}}, its only used in three articles, so I'd TfD it.
Re {{executed}}, not used in any articles, TfD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Template:Surrender doesn't even display on my machine, it should be noted. So it's not very universally accessable anyway. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 02:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - TFD. Neither of the last two display on my work PC, and in any case I'm not generally a fan of graphical symbols where a text label is less ambiguous. Also... the KIA symbol isn't a cross? EyeSerenetalk 08:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I was quite surprised about that myself when i found that earlier this year!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with deleting surrender and executed, but I've opposed deleting KIA for reasons already outlined on the talk page. I don't think that KIA is a suitable replacement for pre 20th century battles. Ranger Steve Talk 19:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with getting rid of {{surrender}} and {{executed}}. {{KIA}}, I'm not so sure; it's widely used, and it doesn't really make sense to me that we'd delete just that one but leave the POW and DOW ones in use. On the other hand, I have no particular objection to getting rid of all three across the board, as the usage is admittedly somewhat esoteric and probably doesn't provide much (if any) value to the average reader.

There's a parallel discussion for {{KIA}} going on at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 18#Template:KIA, incidentally; anyone interested in this matter is invited to comment there as well. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy if we killed the lot. -- saberwyn 02:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think that KIA provides an interesting addition to the infobox. The death of a principal commander is often an as important outcome of a battle as the actual result - as in this example for instance. This is an example of where I don't feel that KIA is a suitable alternative to the dagger as well - KIA is too modern for such a period. I'm not set in stone about this, but I don't really see any compelling rationale to get rid of it. Surrender and executed are OTT though. Saberwyn, are you including POW and DOW in 'the lot' (just wondering)? Ranger Steve Talk 08:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a "thin end of the wedge" argument to be made for getting rid of as many of these templates as we can. If KIA and DOW, why not "Wounded"? If that, how badly? Or how about "Switched sides" or "Ran away" or any of the other myriad things that might happen to a commander during a battle? However, although I wouldn't be much concerned if all of them were deleted, from your argument I accept there may be a value in retaining "Killed" in some form. Is there a more widely useful tag that we could use in place of "KIA" or the graphical cross/dagger? EyeSerenetalk 09:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
We had a head scratch last time this was discussed on the template talk page, but didn't come up with much. I'm less worried about the others, but as I said, a commander's death in battle seems to be one of the useful things we can indicate in an infobox. DOW isn't really something to summarise in an infobox to the same extent, neither is POW really. Ranger Steve Talk 12:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I did ponder a bit as to whether, even when indicated in the infobox, an explanatory footnote is advised to explain the situation. More so when I followed up the surrendered/PoW links and got to General Gamelin in the Battle of France who is marked as PoW but no reading of either article showed that he was taken prisoner. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition to regular footnotes, we also have a "notes" field within the infobox itself; perhaps we could use that in some way?

I wouldn't mind simply using regular footnotes to mark KIAs and so forth; but that does have the minor disadvantage that some readers won't bother to follow them. (I'm not entirely convinced that those readers would care about KIA status in any case, of course.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 12:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a personal opinion but I feel the terms KIA, POW etc. are too modern for earlier historical articles. The dagger/cross symbol has some merit as it is used in other literary contexts and therefore its meaning might quickly be grasped by a general reader (which AFAIK is why we have info boxes rather than just rely on the main text). I'm not sure there are similar symbolic convention for other terms, though.Monstrelet (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I notice that the nom's been withdrawn, but I still think that this is a conversation worth having. Especially as Surrender and Executed are barely used. Ranger Steve Talk 20:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, perhaps we could TfD those two but, as Kirill suggested, alter the KIA template to something more suitable? If the dagger is the best symbol then fine, though until this thread I thought it was a cross (and that it indicated a footnote until the first time I clicked it). EyeSerenetalk 10:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC) (edit: just noticed they're already at TfD :P EyeSerenetalk 10:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

We Need Your Help Please

We have begun an RFC at the Gibraltar article. The section for discussion is here. We really need a wider audience to help us with suggestions. Since this is one of the articles in your project area we would appreciate your assistance. Thanks! JodyB talk 11:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Help building Judaism in the United States military, Sikhism in the United States military

I realised there isn't much coverage of some of the US religious minorities whose service in the military is affected by cultural/religious factors. So I've started Judaism in the United States military, and will also be starting Sikhism in the United States military. Any help building either of these articles would be much appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

UAVs at CFD

Just a heads-up for everybody, Category:UAVs and drones is up for discussion at Categories for discussion, more comments if anybody feels like it would be appreciated (and see also this. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War vs. World War II

Seriously, the term "Great Patriotic War" is the common way of expressing World War II in Russian and some other countries. Using "World War II" is meaningless seeing that it means nothing in those countries. In English literature when writing about the Soviet Union in World War II they usually use the term Great Patriotic War! or of course, the Eastern Front.... But seeing that the Eastern Front wasn't a war, but a front in a war, its not the right way of expressing World War II. This essay should be overturned and we should use the term "Great Patriotic War". --TIAYN (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the essay does not correspond to the outcomes of both previous discussions of the term. It seems to have been agreed so far that we may use the term "Great Patriotic War" in the limited scope of the articles related to the Soviet Union and the post-Soviet states. GreyHood Talk 19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I seem to recall that what was decided was that we referring to things such as books or statues we could use Great patriotic war. But not when referring to wider events (such as campaigns).Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Slatersteven. I'm not sure that the current essay is too dissimilar from the result of the last discussion is it? Ranger Steve Talk 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that essay linked above is the result of the last discussion, IIRC. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to quote users who supported my point of view on this discussion when it was last discussed, which can be viewed here: --WorldWarTwoEditor (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Well, the fact that it is used only by Russians should be ample enough evidence that it suffers from NPOV. If you disagree with the use of "Second World War", why not opt for a more neutral term like Russo-German War, or Soviet-German War?"

"I'd suggest avoiding "Great Patriotic War" (we have an article on it, incidentally) completely - it's an irreparably biased term. It'd be the equivalent of piping the American Civil War as the War Against Northern Aggression."

"From a purely practical point of view, a far larger proportion of the readership will recognise WWII over Great Patriotic War, making the context of the article easier to follow without using the link. Using Great Patriotic War is the equivalent of referring to the Pacific War as the Greater East Asia War in any articles about Japanese subjects. It just doesn't strike me as particularly clear."

"Yeah, I agree with what's already been said here. The Great Patriotic War is biased towards the Soviet point of view and most readers will not recognize it. Simply World War II, Second World War, or [[Eastern Front (World War II)|]] will serve the readers better and avoid Soviet propaganda issues. –"

"I agree, that would be equally acceptable. In the context of writing about how the Russians perceive their part in WWII, I think using "Great Patriotic War" is perfectly fine. As a general term though, it falls foul of the naming convention guidance to use the most common English term (which I guess would probably be Eastern Front)."

"For something like a sculpture, inscription, or quote, GPW makes sense. It just isn't appropriate for use in general articles describing military operations. I think that's basically what Steve and EyeSerene said above, although in fewer words.

"First of all, I don't think anyone is seriously proposing Operation Barbarossa, that is obviously historically wrong. The reason why I, at least, prefer Eastern Front (World War II) is that most English-speaking readers are going to recognize it, and most readers of the English Wikipedia speak English. While it is true that for former Soviet countries the fighting was in the west, in most English-language sources it is described as the Eastern Front, and it seems to me that we should focus on making it accessible to English speakers and compatible with English sources, not Soviet or Russian ones.

"As ranger steve said, "From a purely practical point of view, a far larger proportion of the readership will recognise WWII over Great Patriotic War, making the context of the article easier to follow without using the link. Using Great Patriotic War is the equivalent of referring to the Pacific War as the Greater East Asia War in any articles about Japanese subjects. It just doesn't strike me as particularly clear.""

"One Poland was a battle field during the WW2, including the fighting on the eastern front after the invasion of PLoand. Two Ukrainian nationalist (partriots) faught against Russia (and the Germans) on the eastern front. The great patriotic war represents only the soviot view of the conflict. It ignore Polish and Ukranian (and dare we say Finsish) sensabilities. WW2 is neutral. Also lets not forget that the great patriotic war was not a seperate conflict, the Soviots recived large amounts of Aid from the western allies. So its not conflict isolated from WW2."

Per others above, I think it makes sense in a general context to use "Eastern Front" or a near equivalent, simply because this is what most of our readers will search for and recognise without having to follow disambiguation links, and in my experience this is what is generally used in English-language source. As a very rough-and-ready barometer, "Great Patriotic War" returns 258,000 Google hits while "Eastern Front" (and its variations such as "Eastern Front WWII") return around 1,000,000. I agree that part of our mission is to educate as well as inform, but we can always write something like "...the war on the Eastern front (referred to by the Soviets as the 'Great Patriotic War')..." in articles where we need to do so." — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:WorldWarTwoEditor (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict with above post) I wrote the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Nomenclature for the Eastern Front of World War II or the Great Patriotic War, based on my personal understanding (which admittedly may be wrong) of outcome of the previous discussions. The essay contains permalinks (so we don't have to worry about archiving) to two previous discussions, with the [Discussion opened 30 September 2010 being the more populated. (If there are other older discussions that anyone knows of, please add those permalinks to the essay also, thanks.)

A main concern for me when I wrote the essay was to put an end to warring and sniping over the issue. This is more important than which "side" gets its way. Both sides made reasonable arguments, but - speaking as someone who came into the discussion favoring "Great Patriotic war" - I found the "Eastern Front" advocates' arguments to be more convincing. I think that the argument "This is the English Wikipedia, for English speakers, and most every English speaker understands what is meant by Eastern Front of World War II while many English speakers who are not specialists or experts don't even know what Great Patriotic War refers to" is an extremely compelling argument. We are here to enlighten, not to confuse, and you shouldn't have to be an expert to read the Wikipedia.

We don't generally pay to much mind to counting heads, but FWIW I think - without actually counting - that the "Eastern Front" people outnumbered the "Great Patriotic War" people. If anybody wants to take the time to count, maybe I'm wrong. But as User:WorldWarTwoEditor shows above, strength of argument is with the "Eastern Front" folks, in my opinion.

By the way, does anyone know what term Britannica uses? This would be a useful data point, I think, Herostratus (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as we use latin phrases for articles regarding the Roman Empire we use Russian phrases when needed.... It is also incorrect to call the war the Eastern War seeing that it was part of a bigger conflict, second in Russia "World War II" doesn't ber any meaning, therefor using World War II instead of "Great Patriotic War" is idiotic and even worse, "incorrect".
To compare the naming process of the American Civil War is ridiculues, seeing that "Civil War" is the most normal term when naming the American Civil War, and not the "War on Northern Aggresion". --TIAYN (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Britannica uses Eastern Front. Perhaps "Civil War" is the normal name for the conflict in the northern US, but there are a number of other names for it in the south. See Naming the American Civil War for examples. It's the exact same situation with regards to the Eastern Front. That is the name most commonly used in English sources and countries, which is why we should use it.
You're also missing a very basic point: articles on Eastern Front battles/etc. include not just Russia but also Germany. It would be incredibly POV to structure articles from the Soviet perspective. We must always be neutral in our articles, and that includes the choice of names for specific events. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Per most of the comments above, we generally follow WP:NC and the other guidance that states that we should use the most common English-language terms to refer to things. I appreciate that to a Russian, "Eastern Front" means something else entirely and the war with Germany was their Western Front, but most English-language sources refer to it as the Eastern Front and so must we. As I said in earlier discussions, there's nothing wrong with using "Great Patriotic War" when referring to how Russian sources treat the conflict, but as a general term this isn't common. As a rough-and-ready comparison (and excluding Wikipedia results), "Eastern Front" gets >8.3 million Ghits whereas "Great Patriotic War" gets <1.5 million hits. EyeSerenetalk 13:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with Parsecboy and EyeSerene, and there's no reason we can't throw in "called the Great Patriotic War in Russia" (and give the Russian in Cyrillic) once in the major articles. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding a data point which may or may not add info to the discussion: The German Wikipedia refers to the Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War as the de:Deutsch-Sowjetischer Krieg or German-Soviet war. The Germans also translate the term "Great Patriotic War" as Großer Vaterländischer Krieg which literally means "Great Fatherland War". I don't speak Russian but I would like to know what better reflects the true nature of the term "Great Patriotic War" in its native Russian language. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Great Fatherland War" is actually a fairly precise (if somewhat unidiomatic in English) translation of the Russian term, since "оте́чество" does mean "fatherland". Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Essay

I have modified the essay, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Nomenclature for the Eastern Front of World War II or the Great Patriotic War

The things that fall outside the rule of "most common in the English-speaking world" and where the term Great Patriotic War should be used are the following:

  1. Issues that fall outside the scope of WikiProject Military history:
  2. Biographies of Soviet people, including service histories of military people

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure there was agrement to this change, and would ask that its reverted back. I have reverted back. There was no consensus for that chgange so leave it alon untill on is achived.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I cannot see any discussion on this on the wording of the essay anywhere.< What your version is doing is extending MilHist naming conventions beyond the scope of the project. I find this totally unacceptable. My preferred version was here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not say it had been discused, I said it had not been agred to. You made the change without waiting for other opinions. The that the version I restored to was the agreed version the last time this mater was discused. How are generals beyond the scope of the MilHist (or other "military people"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
As you can see above the general agrement is that the wording of the essay refelcts the consesnsus as the how and when the term Great Patriotis war shojuold be used." think that essay linked above is the result of the last discussion" "I'm not sure that the current essay is too dissimilar from the result of the last discussion is it?" " I wrote the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Nomenclature for the Eastern Front of World War II or the Great Patriotic War, based on my personal understanding (which admittedly may be wrong) of outcome of the previous discussions". So it has indead been mentioned.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You wrote it? How come I do not see your name in the edit history? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Their quotations.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussion

Ok, Let's discuss the essay here. I believe my wording reflects the consensus and the outcome of the last discussion. What it adds to the previous version is that it does a far better job in specifying the exceptions. I have listed the three exceptions above. Is there any one of these that you object to?

As to the examples, they were crap. No Soviet composer honored Operation Barbarossa. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I get the sense that you think that Military History people are overreaching and wrong; pardon me if that's wrong, but if so, then arguing with us here won't resolve the issue for you. Wikipedia's policy page on naming things ... specifically page titles, but the page carries a lot of weight on naming things in general ... is WP:TITLE. Best would be to post over on that talk page asking a question or making a statement. If you don't like the answer, you can even suggest a change to policy yourself that's more in line with what you want, as people do all the time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
What WWIIEditor was originally doing as an IP editor was targeting instances of GPW in articles outside MilHist. Maybe we should not be discussing those here, but the essay make it clear that they are excluded. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry they may be implictly excluded (but not having it mentioned) but theyt are not specicaly excluded.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
OK I object to the inclusion of millitary personel in your list of exclusions. They are clearly coverd by MilHist and any artciel about them will likley cover the war in grreat detail. As such it should refelect the most common English language name. In otehr words for millitary matters we should use WW2 or Eastern front. I woulod also argue that as this is the MilHist board any material that does not relate to MilHist should not be discused here. So you line about matters outside WikiProject Military history is not for us to decide upon. If you wish to write something like
"When writing articels that fall under WikiProject Military history events on Eastern Front in World War Two, even when viewed from a Russian or Soviet perspective, the term "Great Patriotic War" should not be used. Instead, terms such as "Second World War" or "Eastern Front Campaign of the Second World War" or (when context is clear) ""Eastern Front Campaign" or ""Eastern Front" or other similar appropriate terms should be used. (In all the examples shown, the link would be piped to Eastern Front (World War II), e. g. Eastern Front (World War II).)"
Exceptions:
Titles and quotes are not not to be changed
For certain descriptions that closely mimic titles, either style may be used. The style used by the editor originating the material should be respected, and edit warring over this is not encouraged.


and we leve non MilHis topics to otehr boards. By the way the RN do not call it the Great Patriotic war.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Your latest change does not alter my objection, and in fact strengthens it. You are now clearly saying that MilHist material about soviet solders should be exempt As an example [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I strongly object to your edit warring here. Please stop! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
My edit warring here? is that what you meant to say? I do not see an evidacen of my edit warring on this page, please provide an example>?Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I updated my list of exceptions to only include "service histories". In practice this covers the "battles" field in the info-box template. I believe service histories of US military personnel likewise list the American names of the operations, i.e. Desert Storm instead of Gulf War – although I have not checked. What I know for certain is the most articles on US ships use the US names for operations. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. – You have again included your symphony examples. I do not think they fall into Wikiproject MilHist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Norman Schwarzkopf: First Persian Gulf War
Ricardo Sanchez: Operation Desert Storm
Chester W. Nimitz: World War II
So no real consistency.
As for US names for navel actions, well as this is the English language Wiki english language names would tend to be used. But on would like to see some exmaples.
As for teh Symphony examples, they are there just as examples of the kind of wording we could use. But I will take them out thus leaving no examples of Exsemtions.Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
New proposal
"When writing articels that fall under WikiProject Military history events on Eastern Front in World War Two, even when viewed from a Russian or Soviet perspective, the term "Great Patriotic War" should not be used. Instead, terms such as "Second World War" or "Eastern Front Campaign of the Second World War" or (when context is clear) ""Eastern Front Campaign" or ""Eastern Front" or other similar appropriate terms should be used. (In all the examples shown, the link would be piped to Eastern Front (World War II), e. g. Eastern Front (World War II).)"
Exceptions:
Titles and quotes are not not to be changed
For certain descriptions that closely mimic titles, either style may be used. The style used by the editor originating the material should be respected, and edit warring over this is not encouraged. Slatersteven (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I extensively re-edited the essay. I didn't make any substantive changes. I added a "reasons" section for the benefit of future generations. It's not as concise as it was, but whatever. Of course, it's a wiki, so any changes to my changes are welcome. On thing I am not sure of: when using the construct "Andropov's monument to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War...", should this link to Eastern Front (World War II) (which redirect to Eastern Front) or to Great Patriotic War (term)? Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Where we stand

OK, here is the situation as I see it. We have threads on this subject started on September 26, on September 30, and on November 14. I note that in the November 14 thread we are starting to see mostly the same people going over mostly the same arguments, so let's see if we can get a picture of where we are before continuing this.

Numbers

The September 26 thread contained a lot of interesting discussion about various cases and exceptions and situations and reasons. Good discussion. It wasn't the kind of discussion that lent itself to comments that can be clear labeled "Support" or "Oppose", but taking each comment and placing it in a category as best I can, and bearing in mind that most all positions taken had various nuances, I get (and excuse my rendering of the usernames, which I just scribbled, and if I put you in the wrong category please accept my apology and fix it):

  • Favor Eastern Front: 1 (Ocaasi)
  • Favor Great Patriotic War: 3 (Paul Siebert, Nick-D, Petri Krohn), + 1 who in a later thread made comments putting him in the other category (this is EyeSerene).
  • Other (no opinion, opinion impossible to categorize, etc): 1 (Diannaa) + 3 who in a later thread made comments putting them in a category.

In the September 30 thread it's also hard to categorize many comments, but it's a little easier a positions are getting a bit more hardened. This only adds people not already listed above.

  • Favor Eastern Front: 9 (Herostratus, HonCatalan, Slatersteven, Parsecboy, Ranger Steve, Joe N, WorldWarTwoEditor, YellowMonkey, EyeSerene)
  • Favor Great Patriotic War: 3 (Fifelfoo, GreyHood, TREKphiler)

And in this thread (November 14), so far I get (only listing editors not already listed above):

  • Favor Eastern Front: 3 (Dank, Bushranger, Edward321)
  • Favor Great Patriotic War: 1 (TIAYN)
  • 'Other' (no opinion, etc): 2 (MisterBee, Kiril)

So adding this all up we get:

  • Favor Eastern Front: 13
  • Favor Great Patriotic War: 7

"Eastern Front" has a pretty solid majority, just short of 2-1.

(N.B.: there is a considerable "swing vote" around the issue of entities that are not artifacts of the Second World War itself but of Russian remembrance of the Second World War, viz., Andropov's monument.) Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC) + edits Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

i may ask, of course, to put me again into GPW camp, but I think that this bipolar count of numbers isn't of much use. Obviously, both EF and GPW may and should be used on English Wikipedia, but each term should have its appropriate scope and contexts. So if we start to vote, we should choose not between a pair of terms (there is also Soviet-German War btw), but between a number of pairs "term + context". For example, I'm against the usage of GPW in global, German, American and Western/Central European contexts, I'm inclined also against its usage in infoboxes, but I found it perfectly acceptable not only in the quotes and art descriptions, but also in the main body of the articles about Soviet military personnel and Soviet/post-Soviet locations. GreyHood Talk 15:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The argument above (by GreyHood) is the most convincing of all. I do agree that titles and infoboxes should use "common names", but otherwise there should be no constraining policy. Redirects like GPW are completely valid when utilized in proper context, and often prove superior to "common names" by providing nuance, flavor, and a respite from repetition. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Strength of argument

Obviously this is subjective. As someone who has been on both "sides" of this issue, I'll try my best to summarize.

Let me say that both "sides" have reasonable arguments. I don't think I saw one single comment that was not reasonably cogent, and all participants are to be congratulated.

OK. There were various discussions about technical issues (how to refer to Continuation War events? What about Poland in 1939?) but these are not core issues, and it's easy enough to solve these cases by proper wording.

The point that "east" is "west" to a Russian, and so forth, is nitpicking. It's not core argument either way. The point that referring to (say) the Warsaw Uprising as an event in the Great Patriotic War (which it technically was, I guess) would be inappropriate is true, but no one is going to do that, so issues like this are not insurmountable whichever term is used generally. Not a core issue.

The argument that "Great Patriotic War" is biased is not really accurate. It may have started out as propaganda, but the fact is that today even non-political and anti-communist Russians use the term. It is the proper term of art for the war, in Russia. And on the Russian Wikipedia I would expect that they use this term.

The point that it's silly or wrong to assign participants in a campaign to a name which would mean nothing to them is not a strong point, in my view. If you used the term World War I to someone in the trenches in 1916 they would look at you blankly, and this applies to many many wars and campaigns.

Really, when you get down it, the core argument boils down to this:

"From a purely practical point of view, a far larger proportion of the readership will recognise WWII over Great Patriotic War, making the context of the article easier to follow without using the link"

versus (I don't have an exact quote I can use, but something like):

Great Patriotic War is the term used in Russia. And we are writing about events in Russia. And we should use the term that is appropriate to the context in which we are writing.

Again, both views are reasonable. In my view, the principle expressed in the first argument (the Wikipedia is accessible to everyone) is stronger than the principle expressed by the second (we should use terms preferred by the subject rather than imposing our own). "The Wikipedia is accessible to everyone" is pretty close to a First Principle or High Principle, while the second principle is an important principle and one with wide (although not universal) application, it isn't really a First Principle.

So where do we stand? We have a 13-7 majority for "Eastern Front" combined with (depending on whether you agree with me or not) a somewhat stronger strength of argument for "Eastern Front". So now what?

Two acceptable next steps would be:

  • The "Great Patriotic War" proponents could graciously concede, recognizing that they have not won the day, and let's all get back to being good colleagues and writing some articles.
  • Or we could go to an RfC to get some fresh blood.

One next step that is in my opinion not OK would be:

  • Continued rehashing of the arguments with the same participants, fighting over the essay, calling my work "crap", making haughty demands on editors' talk pages, edit warring on article pages, and so forth.

So what's it gonna be? Just let it go, or an RfC? Ball is your court, Great Patriotic War proponents. Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on the strength of arguments, please put me in the Favor Eastern Front Camp. It's clearly the most recognizable term to the majority of English speakers and its consistent with the term used for this front in World War I. Edward321 (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm still on the fence, but I'll say that, in general, Eastern Front (of World War II) gets my vote. In context, as has been mentioned - with regard to statues and monuments and such - GPW could be used. E.G., '...the Battle of Kursk was a major battle fought as part of the Eastern Front campaign of the Second World War...' would be preferred to GPW, but '...this famous statue memorialises the heroism of Ivan Ivanovich during the Great Patriotic War...' would be an acceptable useage of GPW. Does that make sense? - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 02:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
It makes great sense. And you, I, and several other editors are in agreement on this point. And I think its a good compromise. And it should go in the essay, carefully written to make the cases as clear as possible. If anyone wants to do this, it's OK with me, or I will do it anon, but not right away. (N.B., I edited the "Numbers" section above to reflect the above comments.) Herostratus (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What about articels people, would it be sonsiderd acceptable to have (say in the info box) Ivan Vasalinov General commanding the 211th Gaurds panda division during the Great patriotic war?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
They had a panda division? No, I would say it would have to be "Ivan Vasalinov General commanding the 211th Gaurds panda division during World War II". (or "World War II (Eastern Front)" or "Eastern Front campaign of World War II" or like that.) Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You have to be F***ing with me right? --TIAYN (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
For a page on a Red Army officer?! You're not serious, I hope? This is taking the allegedly "best known" name to an absurd extreme. It's not actually "best known", just "best known in Western English-language sources", 'cause I'll wager not one Russian-lanugage source so much as mentions "Eastern Front". It also IMO shows a certain pro-German bias, since it's not an Allied "front", either, but a German one. This is an extreme case of imposed bias. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
In the UK, it was known as the "Eastern Front" in the First World War and in the Second (eg House of Commons Debate 14 October 1941 vol 374 cc1239-41 1239

"Mr. Shinwell asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the war situation on the Eastern front") And it was an Allied front since the USSR joined the Allies. That there was not in the Second World War a matching Western Front until mid-44 does not make the phrase any the less accurate.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The thesis that we have to chose between Great Patriotic War and Eastern Front, and, after choice has been made use one of these two terms doesn't seem fully correct. Firstly, these terms are not fully interchangeable. For instance, Russian Wikipedia has two separate articles "Bосточноевропейский театр военных действий Второй мировой войны" [2] (Eastern Front (World War II)) and "Великая Отечественная война"[3] (Great Patriotic War), the later is restricted only with the period from June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945. Secondly, the term "Great Patriotic War" is hardly acceptable in, e.g., the article about Friedrich Paulus: can we seriously claim that this German general had been captured during the decisive battle of the Great Patriotic War? That would sound odd for a German, French or British reader (-3 to GPW). However, it would be equally odd for the ex-Soviet reader to learn that, e.g. Dmitry Shostakovich's 7th symphony is a musical testament of the 25 million Soviet citizens, who lost their lives in Eastern Front of World War II due to the German invasion? (-1 to EF) Moreover, taking into account that more people live in the Eastern hemisphere that in the Western one, this Eastern front sounds odd for them. (-0.5 to EF) More precisely would be to write "Eastern front of the European theatre of World War II", however, this term is awkward, and, importantly, it is used very rarely. Thirdly, the term "Eastern Front (World War II)" reduces the GPW to just one of many WWII sub-theatres, thus reflecting the Cold war propaganda, that for decades consistently tried to understate the importance of this theatre (see, e.g. Ronald M. Smelser, Edward J. Davies (II) The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture. Cambridge University Press, 2008, ISBN 0521712319, 9780521712316) (-1 to EF). In actuality, by its scale and strategic implications the EF exceeded all other theatres of war taken together. I would say, it was a separate war, a war between the USSR and Nazi Germany, which eventually decided the fate of the whole WWII. Importantly, both for Germans and for ex-Soviet people the term "Soviet-German war" causes no cognitive dissonance, because it correctly reflects the essence of those times events. Importantly, this term is comparatively common in English literature [4], including the books of such notable authors as David Glantz. Interestingly, some authors directly combine the two terms, e.g. "Eastern front: the Soviet-German war (John Norton Westwood. Hamlyn, 1984. ISBN 0861241509, 9780861241507)
In connection to that, my proposal is to think about the following name: Eastern Front (Soviet-German war) as an alternative to EF and GPW. The advantages of this name are obvious: by contrast to GPW, it is not a local name and will cause no idiosyncrasy in Germany or Anglophone world. From other hand, it is acceptable for the ex-Soviet peoples, because they see this conflict as a war between the USSR and Germany (for instance, in Ukrainian WP the article's name is "Німецько-радянська війна", literally "German-Soviet war"). This name emphasises the role of this conflict in the WWII as whole, thereby compensating for the consequences of the Cold war mythology. And, finally, this name allows us to clearly distinguish this conflict from the Eastern Front (World War I), because the later was a conflict between Germany and Russia, not USSR . The absence of the direct reference to WWII can hardly be a counter-argument, because Pacific War also has no such reverence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument it was an effectily seperate war casues the oddity that the Murmansk convoys would have to be WW2(Eastern Front (Soviet-German war)) As both the RNB and USN as well as MM were involved in supplying supplies and equipmnet to the red army. THe USA sent more lorries to the USSR then the USSR produced 400,000 and opposed to 197,100 in 1945 something like 60% of all soviot trucks were lend lease.This also seems to ignore that the soviots (during the war) kept on talking abut the western allies launching a second front, thgus they saw their war as part of the sem war (when convieniance suited them). Perhaps Soviot front might be better.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a separate war. My point was that it was something greater than just a sub-theatre of one of WWII theatres.
The immense American economic aid during the second part of Soviet-German conflict is a well known and indisputable fact. That does not make Murmansk convoys (and, e.g. sinking of Scharnhorst) a part of EF.
"Soviet Front" is hardly acceptable, because it implies that it was a German Soviet front, therefore, is Germano-centric.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think calling it eastern front implies its some kind of sub theatre (unless your trying to say that its not part of the European theatre at all, in which case we have Europe Asia (you do now that more Chinese died then Russians so we would also have to include China as a separate theatre as well), and Russia as theatres. As to the Murmansk convoys, what front were they part of then? They are certainly not part of the western front (artic perhaps, another separate major front?). Perhaps we should call it eastern European theatre.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Added Odd as personnel serving on the Murmansk convoys were awarded the Order of the Patriotic War 1st and 2nd Class Included among them was LCDR John Corbus, USN. So why would the Soviets issue an award for participation in a conflict if those recipients wer not part of it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Re Chinese. Firstly, Soviet losses were greater than Chinese ones. Secondly, and more importantly, the Axis losses during the Soviet-German war were greater than the all other Axis losses taken together. Thirdly, the 1941-45 situation in China is better described with the words "stalemate", and Chinese theatre played no decisive role in the defeat of Japan.
Re Murmansk convoys. They belong to the battle of Atlantic, I think.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Arctic convoys of World War II are linked with the Eastern front, eg Convoy PQ 16 ran from Iceland to Archangel and Murmansk. The Battle of the Atlantic is about stopping materiel from reaching the UK and the Middle East and other staging posts then passing on to the USSR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The British Government treated the Artic as part of the Atlantic - sailors were awarded Atlantic Stars for their service. There were no separate naval administrative divisions as one would expect if the RN considered the theatre to be separate - the convoys were protected by the Home Fleet. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that we should just use whatever is most appropriate in the context of the article text, reflects the sources, and will be best understood by the average (English-speaking) reader. I don't think we should try to be too prescriptive, other than absolutely prohibiting blanket replacement of one term for another. If we can agree on some general guidance (such as the essay linked above) that would be great. If not, I guess we agree to disagree and treat each occasion on its individual merits :) EyeSerenetalk 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Concur with your opinion. GreyHood Talk 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely do not agree. That is a prescription for endless edit warring, and an invitation for a user(s) in the future to begin mass-converting articles from one form to another. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if we call it the Late Unpleasantness, but I do care if there's needless turmoil. The fix for that is a clear guideline. Herostratus (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This indeed is a kind of topic which will always be an attractive ground for edit warring... A scheme for a guidiline is proposed below, and it is based on the presupposition that all variants of the name have its own merits. While we should be prescriptive on specifying thes merits, we shouldn't be excessively prescriptive on limiting the usage of some variants. GreyHood Talk 13:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Personally I'd be happy to see something along the lines of Use "Eastern Front" as a default unless there are compelling reasons to use a different term (which should be evident from the context). I guess this is a shorthand way of stating what Greyhood has laid out below - ie, what those compelling reasons for deviating from "Eastern Front" might be. I'm not sure we should be introducing novel terms to try to find a catch-all solution though. EyeSerenetalk 09:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Terms and contexts

Actually the issue is not between two terms, the Eastern Front (World War II) and the Great Patriotic War, but between a wider group of pairs "term + usage contexts". I see it this way:

There may be disagreement between the editors about the specific contents of this scheme, but I think that the scheme itself is among the best ways to formalise the usage of the terms discussed. GreyHood Talk 16:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Which would then produce the interesting effect of meaning that Von Paulus is a veteran of Soviet-German War whilst potentially Nikita Khrushchev would be a vetran of the Great patriotic war. I thougth we supposed to impart knowegde not confuse the hell out of non-experts.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, but Von Paulus indeed was a veteran of Soviet-German War whilst Nikita Khrushchev indeed was a veteran of the Great patriotic war OR Soviet-German War in other terminology, and you can do nothing with that. Note that I've proposed not to use GPW in the infoboxes and in other such formal descriptions. But when it comes to less prescriptive parts of an article, I see no strong enough reasons why should we totally exclude one of the terms when both of them are present in usage and in the literature. Even if someone is get confused, he can sort the things out by few clicks and a bit of reading. GreyHood Talk 16:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Concur with GreyHood, although it would be more correct to say that "Von Paulus indeed was a veteran of Soviet-German War (Eastern Front) whilst Nikita Khrushchev indeed was a veteran of the Great patriotic war (Soviet-German War)". If multiple names are used by the sources, Wikipedia should reflect that fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems an interesting idea. Perhaps using the GPW or EF always in pair with the Soviet German War may be a bit excessive sometimes, and not always stylistically good, but certainly this is a step towards less confusion and more uniform usage. I think that this way it may be rendered in infoboxes and when it is mentioned in an article for the first time, but there is no need to use brackets in every instance of reference to EF/SGW/GPW. GreyHood Talk 23:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Using Sov-Ger War is unusual to me, but it does solve the problem. I also agree, using "GPW (SGW)" or "SGW (GPW)" makes a lot more sense than either alone for the non-expert. (I can picture even some not immediately recognizing "SGW". I wouldn't.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've tried to insert the combined terms proposed by Paul Siebert and their usage into the scheme. GreyHood Talk 19:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found that Soviet-German War is almost unused in English-language literature and that Eastern Front (WW2) is far more often used, so I doubt that I'll be using the former. I do agree that GPW has some merit for Soviet-oriented articles, just not the ones discussing the war itself. It's fine for discussing how the Soviets/Russians remember the war and other types of cultural history, but not as a generic term.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Make this simple please... Just use WWII and Eastern Front, if the russians want Great Patriotic War, goto the Russkie Wikipedia. GPW is leaning toward the Russian and Soviet point of view, while WWII is generally accepted everywhere except there. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Please retract your racist offensive comment. Besides, they are not in line with Wikipedia's core policies of WP:Neutral point-of-view and WP:Anyone can edit. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
World War II and Eastern Front are accepted in Russia as well. But their meaning is different from the Great Patriotic War, both in Russia and elsewhere. The Eastern Front includes the German invasion of Poland, and actually this is one more argument why the German-Soviet War or the Great Patriotic War are better terms. GreyHood Talk 13:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
But the invasion of Poland was part of WW2. Just becasue the Soviots wnat to pretend its not does not mean that no one else should.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
That was more occupation than invasion, not much fighting there. And no one pretends it wasn't a part of World War II, and geographically it was a part of EF. GPW, however, is a different period of WWII and the history of EF. GreyHood Talk 15:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I do like the way the suggestion has been laid out. I like the good thought that has gone into it, and it basically makes sense. I'm not certain that it's not a bit too complicated, don't much like "Russian-German War", and am very leery of "may be used..." constructs, as this doesn't prevent edit warring. At any rate, I'm not sure how to go about getting consensus for this. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not "Russian-German War", but "Soviet-German War", which is proposed to use in combination with EF or GPW, like some of the authors already do (see Paul Siebert's comments). And I think that the first thing about which we should reach a consensus, is the recognition of the fact that both EF and GPW are present in the literature and on the internet in huge quantities, and we shouldn't be too much prescriptive on their usage and we shouldn't try to eliminate one term in the favour of the other. GreyHood Talk 13:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
But which is more common in English langiage sources?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Google hits on the "Eastern Front" - about 993,000 results. This includes, however, Eastern Front (World War I), Eastern Front (Sudan) and Eastern Front (video game). So, I do think the Eastern Front (World War II) is used 2 to 3 three times more often then GPW.
Google hits on the "German-Soviet War" - about 468,000 results. "Soviet-German War" gives additional 28,000 results.
Google hits on the "Great Patriotic War" - about 253,000 results.
These figures don't say anything about contexts of usage. However they clearly do show, that while GPW and GSW are at least two times less popular each than EF, they are still used very often and shouldn't be disregarded too much in the favour of EF. I believe the scheme proposed by me will reflect the proportion EF:GSW:GPW = 2:1:1. It ensures that EF is preferable in the highest-hit general articles, such as World War II. EF is also preferable, may be in combination with GSW, in the articles about non-Soviet military and locations. The rest goes to GSW, GPW (GSW) and GPW. GreyHood Talk 15:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I quick look at those results showed that about half the hits for "German-Soviet war" were down to Gary Grigsby's book "War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945". 3,000 down to webpages using wikipedia, and using -torrent another 4,000 disappeared. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Strangely, on the "German-Soviet War" Google gives 468,000 results now. And there are 139,000 results on the German-Soviet War Gary Grigsby. So the balance seems to remain the same or even improved towards more significance ow GSW, if we take Google as a representative source at all. As for the pages using Wikipedia, I believe there is the same situation with EF and GPW, this doesn't change much. GreyHood Talk 15:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
And doing the same thing throws up 990,000 for “eastern front” http://www.google.co.uk/#q=%22eastern+front%22&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1152&bih=648&prmd=ivnb&ei=E0npTPL8E8OChQf35PgO&start=190&sa=N&fp=77d6be66f75eb368 So it stays about 2 to 1 in favour of Eastern front, the most popular English language name.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't see the point of this your comment. I've already wrote about 993,000 ghits on the Eastern Front above. GreyHood Talk 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Just pointing out it stays at about 2 to 1. Rather then beiong an improvment.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Using "eastern front" with "-wikipedia" I got over 8,000,000. I think the ghits need to be carefully examined rather than depended on. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I wuld agree, but even if we accept a wide margin of error that would apply just as much to German-Russian war (which will trow up WW1 hits and Great Patriotic war (which I beleive has been aplied to otehr wars as well). But we don't really have any other way of dertetmingn it, oterh then books searches.Goggle books hits 291,000 results "Eastern front" http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&q=%22Eastern+front%22&wrapid=tlif12903591473211&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=ep. "GERMAN SOVIET WAR" 6,630 http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&q=%22Eastern+front%22&wrapid=tlif12903591473211&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=ep#hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&tbs=bks:1&&sa=X&ei=yFHpTLOYH4mChQfitLwP&ved=0CCkQBSgA&q=%22GERMAN+SOVIET+WAR%22&spell=1&fp=877e0732892b3382 "GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR" 89,900 results http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&q=%22Eastern+front%22&wrapid=tlif12903591473211&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=ep#hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&tbs=bks:1&&sa=X&ei=_1HpTKDPB9O5hAfjuqSODQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQBSgA&q=%22GREAT+PATRIOTIC+WAR%22&spell=1&fp=877e0732892b3382. Goggle Scholar hits 19,600 results "Eastern front" http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Eastern+front%22+&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0WAR" 431 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&q=%22GERMAN+SOVIET+WAR%22&wrapid=tlif12903594650341&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps "GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR" about 8,940 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4ACAW_en___GB380&q=%22GREAT+PATRIOTIC+WAR%22&wrapid=tlif12903591967041&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps. Of course this is not scientific after all the same cite will appear more then once. But if we only look for scholar then Eastern front wins by a margin of about 2 to 1. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
GSW might create another giant discussion (sorry for my offensive comment, i was trying to get something agreeable and fast onto the board.) over which should go first, GSW or SGW. Figure that out. Sticking to my previous comment, EF of WWII is best, since it is more commonly used. I still don't approve of GPW, except on the USSR and Red Army articles. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Black Friday (1945) now open

The featured article candidacy for Black Friday (1945) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Relatively few comments have been made about this article's nomination - any and all would be much appreciated. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Australian women during World War I

Hi, can anyone help clean up and expand Australian women during World War I? It is a new article created only a few days ago, which has numerous issues. I've been trying to help tighten up the writing and find references but, to be honest, I am finding it difficult to penetrate some of the hyperbole and don't really have many sources or (I'm sorry to say) even content knowledge. Any help would be greatly appreciated as it seems like reasonably important topic. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed some outright nonsense from it (such as a rather odd claim that only 'some' Australian women were unable to fight on the front line of World War I!). I suspect that the article started life as a school essay or equivalent. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It contains copyvio. Notified; rewrite from scratch. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was struck with the same thoughts when I was trying to clean it up, but didn't find anything on my searches (as I was looking mainly at Google books), so I ploughed ahead with trying fix some issues. I'd like to clarify though, are you saying that you are rewriting it currently, or are you asking someone else to do this? As I spent probably three hours in the early hours of this morning trying to fix the many problems the article had, I am not really keen to devote any more time to it. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the energy to input into rewriting (and I know, its horrible, I saw your edit count), but maybe blank and stub is the best way forward at the moment. "Australian women's primary involvement in the first world war was in terms of military nursing. Secondarily, Australian women played significant roles in the homefront, including mobilising support for the war, fighting for and against the conscription referenda, and in the great NSW strike."? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes that might be a solution. I'm not sure if it is possible, though. Based on what the tag says, it seems to require some sort of admin action. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
They need to magic the copyright problems out of the database's permanent diff record first. (Ie: superblanking) Fifelfoo (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that the subsequent versions of the article were derivative of the original copyvio I've deleted the whole thing. I'm really sorry to have to do that in the light of the amount of work AustralianRupert and others put in with cleanup, but I think on balance it was the right way to go. I didn't delete the talk page because I wasn't sure what you want to do with the page, but that can go too if necessary. EyeSerenetalk 10:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was the right thing to do. Copyright violators have developed into my least favorite category of editors during this year (though the editor in question here was probably rather young based on their contributions). Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree too, but I won't be rushing to work on it again, so unless someone else wants to have a go, I'd suggest deleting the talk page too. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Fifelfoo has kindly added some text for a stub. Cheers, everyone. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
...and it's been CSD tagged :( EyeSerenetalk 11:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another reason why my enthusiasm for Wiki has been waning. Nevertheless, I've added a couple of refs and some cats. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Aye, it's unfortunate but it happens (the editor has apologised btw). Thank you once again for all your work :) I dropped some additional potential sources on the talk page - they may be of use to someone at some point. EyeSerenetalk 12:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for your help with sorting this out. Seriously though, this is just one of a long list of things that have been making me question my time here recently. I think I need a break from Wiki for a while. Sorry if this sounds jack. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. I've come close to burnout once or twice myself, especially earlier in my wikicareer, and it's perfectly natural to hit the troughs as well as the peaks. I avoid it now by trying not to edit WP at home (and never at the weekends). It seems to work for me, though I'm fortunate in that my job allows me time to edit during the day. There's certainly plenty here to dislike, but there's also much to celebrate and for me the balance is firmly on the positive side of the equation. However, if you do need a break I think the important thing is to get away before you get completely fed up with Wikipedia as a whole - once that point's been reached, in my experience with other editors I've known it's difficult to find a way back. I hope you don't mind me saying that you're one of the most decent, honourable and level-headed editors I've had the pleasure of encountering here and for my part I'd be very sorry to see you go permanently. No pressure though mate :) EyeSerenetalk 13:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I too wish it weren't so. But take a break before it is too late. I'll look forward to when it is the right time for your return. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, gents. Thanks for the encouraging words, both of you. I'm back now. Just needed a little time away from it. I will probably be limited in my contributions for a while, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members

Given that the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members, including all transcluded pages, has a size of 90,000+ bytes, would it be wise to add a notice at the top warning people about potential lags and whatnot? (Kind of similar to the note at the top of Template talk:DYK, but perhaps a bit more detailed, maybe make it a bordered box?) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, maybe test it out on IE, Safari, Firefox, Chrome and Opera and then put the results into something like the editnotice for this page. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 02:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Motor Landing Craft

Dear Community, I have begun a page for the above Motor Landing Craftof 1926 (I believe the first purpose built landing craft to land a tank. My second page started from scratch. Please look and see that it follows all the WikiProject Military etiquette. Any critique or corrections are most welcome. Thanks for your attention.AmesJussellR (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me - great work. I've just removed the placeholder blank image coding as it was causing the infobox to expand. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio by author of own material?

Slightly unusual this. User:Lecutas has made loads of additions today to several articles on 3rd Regt RHA and it's constituent batteries, a lot of which seem to come from this publication Cairo to Berlin: The 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery 1939-1945 In June this year this user claimed to be the author of this work, J H Dey, (see User talk:Nthep#Breach of Copyright) and demanded that material from his book be removed as it was used without his permission. I'm not totally clear on the copyright position but I don't think he can choose to re-add his own copyrighted material without giving the appropriate permission i.e a Creative Commons licence, can he? Also there are references to other sources The Pride 'O' Them All and A Regiment at War to which he is ascribing his name but I can't find these books by this author. Any advice on how to proceed? NtheP (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ism the book used as a source or does it quote verbatum?Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hard to say without a copy to reference against, but read the articles yourself. From the style it certainly reads like extracts to me. NtheP (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This looks like it could be back door promotion. If you want to check you have to buy my book. I would say its down to him to demonstrate that the materail has been copied from his work without his permision. It also seems to be an SAP, maybe the usere needs banning.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
He's not complaining about it now but he was in June when it had been added by someone else. NtheP (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me but can you provide the links for the original addition of his (alleged) copyrighted material. It seems to me the only addition in June was not of his material, but in April he appears to have added large chunks then added the copyright notice [5][6][7]. So it seems to me the user is playing promotional games.Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the self additions you mention I thin its this version [8] from June 2009. My reference to June this year was when he made a complaint to me of copyvio but I didn't know which article he was talking about, it might have been one of the articles on the constituent batteries rather than the main article. NtheP (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right Nthep - if he wants to reproduce his own work here he will also need to release it under the appropriate license. If his book has been published this will cause issues with his publisher, who presumably expect him not to release the text for free. However, I agree with Slatersteven that there seems to be a promotional element here, but those diffs are redlinks (have they been deleted?) We obviously welcome the contributions of experts in their field, but there's a fine line between applying your general expertise and appearing to plug your books by quoting them as sources. EyeSerenetalk 10:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The redlinks were just because double square brackets were used instead of single ones -- I have fixed them (and have so confused others that read your comments!). The major problem with using copyright material in this case is how do we know that the author and the Wikipedia ID are the same person? We can not just take the word of the user of a Wikipedia ID that they are who they say they are. The solution to this is to use the method used on the Richard Lindon article and an OTRS supplied by the Wikipedia:Volunteer response team. James Temple was an article where text had been copied from british-civil-wars website (James Temple), but the copyleft licence is not the same as Wikipedias, because british-civil-wars prohibits commercial redistribution. I had already deleted a dozen or more articles with text copied from that site and recreated them without the copyright infringement, but the article James Temple had been developed a long way from the original, but as a derived work it was not permissible to keep it. David Plant the author of british-civil-wars has a USER ID on Wikipedia called User:Digweed, but we were faced with the same problem as here how do we know that the USER ID is an account operated by David Plant? The use of OTRS solved the problem. Self promotion may be the motive in this case but there is no reason we can not use that to our mutual advantage providing the copyright issue is solved with an OTRS. In the mean time the text should be deleted while the OTRS is sought. by a user id called PBS 20:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have placed a link to this section on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems in a section with the same name "Copyvio by author of own material?" -- PBS (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, OTRS is the way to go. Point the user towards Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Yoenit (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the copyright issue was raised here, there have been no contributions to the conversation by User:Lecutas either here or on User talk:Lecutas. So as the text placed in several articles is said by User:Lecutas to be copyrighted to J. H. Dey, and as we have no way of knowing if User:Lecutas is an account operated by J. H. Dey, I have reverted the contributions as we will need to follow the procedures outline in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials before we can input the copyrighted text. -- PBS (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Eastern Front (World War II)

Hi, I have a few questions regarding this category tree:

  1. "World war II" is a subcategory of "Military history of <Country>" (via "Wars involving <Country>"). This results in, say, Poston War Relocation Center being part of "Military history of Romania" Is this a bug or a feature?
  2. "Military history of Bulgaria during World War II", "Military history of Poland during World War II", "Yugoslavia during World War II", "Eastern European World War II resistance movements " are included into "Eastern Front (World War II)" and again into "World War II Eastern European Theatre". Can anyone explain the need for two of these cats (EF(WWII) and WWIIEET)?
  3. What purpose serves the "Soviet–German War" category? It is redundant with "Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II" and currently contains some copies of other branches of the tree. --illythr (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above (#Great_Patriotic_War_vs._World_War_II) may be relevant here. It certainly looks like there is some duplication and redundancy in the cats, but I don't think anything has been agreed yet about naming so it may be best to wait on the outcome of the project discussion. EyeSerenetalk 09:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Battles by people

I suspect that this was proposed or discussed before, but why aren't there categories by people? Such as "Battles involving Napoleon", "Battles involving Alexander the Great", "Battles involving George Washington", "Battles involving Simón Bolívar", etc. MBelgrano (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was ever really discussed at any length, but the obvious reason would be the fact that there's no clear divide between military leaders who ought to have such categories and those who don't. "Battles involving Napoleon" is easy; but would we take this down, to, say, "Battles involving Richard Winters"? If we do, then we're setting ourselves up to create hundreds of categories, particularly for WWI and WWII battles where participation by lower-ranking officers is well-documented; if we don't, then we're going to spend a great deal of time arguing over which personnel "deserve" such categorization.
Keep in mind, incidentally, that we do have some elements of this in the template system; see, for example, {{Campaignbox Alexander's Persian campaigns}}. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
We can choose to categorize only by commanders. In most battles, the specific commanders of a given battle are two (one for each side) or a very short number of people. If we set aside lower-rank officers, or people who was at a battle as a mere soldier and became a commander later in his career, and consider as well the already written guideline that does not allow categories of very few elements and no potencial to grow, we could easily set a clear and objetive difference between the Napoleons and the "unknown soldiers". MBelgrano (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that still leaves the question of how far down the chain of command one goes. Particularly for modern, large-scale battles, do we list only army commanders? Corps commanders? Division commanders? For something like, say, the Battle of the Bulge, we could be looking at dozens of important figures involved. To make things more complicated, in many cases military leaders are known in large part for the subsidiary commands they held, so limiting the categorization only to the top-level commanders in each battle would create bizarre scenarios as well; for example, Nelson's role in the Battle of Copenhagen would be omitted, as would Jackson's in the Battle of Chancellorsville.
On a slightly more pedantic note, if we're going to limit this to command staff only, "battles involving X" doesn't seem like the best wording, since mere soldiers are also involved. I'd be tempted to go with the more traditional "battles fought by X", but I'm not sure how clear that will be either. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Project incubator launched

As part of our ongoing efforts to make the project's infrastructure simpler and easier to use, we've set up an incubator within the strategy think tank. The incubator will act as a central host for new initiatives—such as proposed task forces, special projects, and other groups—as they gather interest and evolve into more permanent elements of the project's infrastructure.

Over the next few weeks, we will be rolling the remnants of the existing "working group" system into the new incubator page model. In the meantime, anyone who has an idea for a new group, or who has been running a small group out of their user space, is encouraged to make use of the incubator. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Black Project report

I apologize for the tardiness in this report, but as they say better late than never. I have taken another lap around the black project pages and I make the following findings related to them:

  • We need to establish some sort of criteria for determining at what point a black project ceases to be black; for example, the B-2 was born as a black project but is not longer black, therefore should it still be included in the list or should it be moved to a more appropriate area of coverage?
  • The article Nazi UFOs has disappeared from the category, and the article now postulates that the craft in question are more science fiction than science fact, but its still tagged as being within our scope, and therefore I am going to retain the article on the list since I feel that the article is better tracked from our angle as a black project. Objections?

Also, I would like to ask for input concerning the following sources currently in use:

For the Black Project working group, TomStar81 (Talk) 04:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to very highly state that both designation-systems.net and vectorsite.net are Reliable Sources - they both state their own sources very clearly. abotetopsecret.com, however...I've heard tales that it's rather more a "lunatic fringe" type of site... - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the Atlas Carver was ever really a 'black project' given that it's development was reported in the international press. Flightglobal looks like a good source to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Flightglobal should be considered a RS as well. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 06:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with pravda.ru ? It's a regular Russian newspaper. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
It was also the official newspaper of the Soviet Union's Communist Party until 1991, and many of the same writers who worked for them went on to found the online Pravda. The words "tabloid" and "sensationalist" also pop up. At least according to the Pravda article...) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean we can't use Fox News as an RS? 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
In my view, yes. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree, unless we're using it as a source for what Fox News itself said about something. It has a fairly well-documented conservative bias and has been criticised for spinning stories. EyeSerenetalk 11:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
And MSNBC spins them the other way. Beware the media, regardless of what "side" they are on, for they tell you what they want you to hear! (Plus, they think you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 18:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict categories by year

Has there been some discussion here as to when conflict categories should cover a single year, and when they should cover longer time periods. For example, I notice there is a parent category called Category: 1410s conflicts which only has about 20 entries when a number of the individual year sub-categories (e.g. Category:Conflicts in 1412) have only one entry, and these are unlikely to grow in number, so are all the individual year categories needed? Eldumpo (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they're primarily there as part of a cross-referencing to the overall by-year category scheme (Category:1412, etc.). They probably wouldn't be necessary simply to subdivide the conflict categories themselves, but they do seem to provide some useful navigation across the entire category structure. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Crimp now open

The A-Class review for Operation Crimp is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Sangju (1950) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Sangju (1950) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Ebelsberg now open

The peer review for Battle of Ebelsberg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio by author of own material?

Slightly unusual this. User:Lecutas has made loads of additions today to several articles on 3rd Regt RHA and it's constituent batteries, a lot of which seem to come from this publication Cairo to Berlin: The 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery 1939-1945 In June this year this user claimed to be the author of this work, J H Dey, (see User talk:Nthep#Breach of Copyright) and demanded that material from his book be removed as it was used without his permission. I'm not totally clear on the copyright position but I don't think he can choose to re-add his own copyrighted material without giving the appropriate permission i.e a Creative Commons licence, can he? Also there are references to other sources The Pride 'O' Them All and A Regiment at War to which he is ascribing his name but I can't find these books by this author. Any advice on how to proceed? NtheP (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ism the book used as a source or does it quote verbatum?Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hard to say without a copy to reference against, but read the articles yourself. From the style it certainly reads like extracts to me. NtheP (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This looks like it could be back door promotion. If you want to check you have to buy my book. I would say its down to him to demonstrate that the materail has been copied from his work without his permision. It also seems to be an SAP, maybe the usere needs banning.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
He's not complaining about it now but he was in June when it had been added by someone else. NtheP (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me but can you provide the links for the original addition of his (alleged) copyrighted material. It seems to me the only addition in June was not of his material, but in April he appears to have added large chunks then added the copyright notice [11][12][13]. So it seems to me the user is playing promotional games.Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the self additions you mention I thin its this version [14] from June 2009. My reference to June this year was when he made a complaint to me of copyvio but I didn't know which article he was talking about, it might have been one of the articles on the constituent batteries rather than the main article. NtheP (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right Nthep - if he wants to reproduce his own work here he will also need to release it under the appropriate license. If his book has been published this will cause issues with his publisher, who presumably expect him not to release the text for free. However, I agree with Slatersteven that there seems to be a promotional element here, but those diffs are redlinks (have they been deleted?) We obviously welcome the contributions of experts in their field, but there's a fine line between applying your general expertise and appearing to plug your books by quoting them as sources. EyeSerenetalk 10:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The redlinks were just because double square brackets were used instead of single ones -- I have fixed them (and have so confused others that read your comments!). The major problem with using copyright material in this case is how do we know that the author and the Wikipedia ID are the same person? We can not just take the word of the user of a Wikipedia ID that they are who they say they are. The solution to this is to use the method used on the Richard Lindon article and an OTRS supplied by the Wikipedia:Volunteer response team. James Temple was an article where text had been copied from british-civil-wars website (James Temple), but the copyleft licence is not the same as Wikipedias, because british-civil-wars prohibits commercial redistribution. I had already deleted a dozen or more articles with text copied from that site and recreated them without the copyright infringement, but the article James Temple had been developed a long way from the original, but as a derived work it was not permissible to keep it. David Plant the author of british-civil-wars has a USER ID on Wikipedia called User:Digweed, but we were faced with the same problem as here how do we know that the USER ID is an account operated by David Plant? The use of OTRS solved the problem. Self promotion may be the motive in this case but there is no reason we can not use that to our mutual advantage providing the copyright issue is solved with an OTRS. In the mean time the text should be deleted while the OTRS is sought. by a user id called PBS 20:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have placed a link to this section on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems in a section with the same name "Copyvio by author of own material?" -- PBS (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, OTRS is the way to go. Point the user towards Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Yoenit (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the copyright issue was raised here, there have been no contributions to the conversation by User:Lecutas either here or on User talk:Lecutas. So as the text placed in several articles is said by User:Lecutas to be copyrighted to J. H. Dey, and as we have no way of knowing if User:Lecutas is an account operated by J. H. Dey, I have reverted the contributions as we will need to follow the procedures outline in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials before we can input the copyrighted text. -- PBS (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Kapitänleutnant

I just found Kapitänleutnant redirects to Captain Lieutenant. This strikes me very odd: German rank redirecting to a Rus Navy rank? IDK how to fix it... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RFD? - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I would have changed it to point to Lieutenant Commander, but I wasn't (& am not) certain just blindly changing it was a good idea. There had to be a rationale for pointing it as it is now... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I suppose the rationale is that Captain Lieutenant is the literal translation and to be fair that article does go on to cover the rank in services other than the Russian Navy. Perhaps, and not a decision I would want to make, most of Captain Lieutenant ought to be merged into Lieutenant Commander leaving just the historical (17th/18th C) land forces term under Captain Lieutenant. NtheP (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds sensible to me. I deny, however, sufficient ability to make such a move, :) so if it gets done, it'll be by somebody else. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Its probably better not to do that.
The C-L page is one of a series of pages on naval ranks which are different to those in English eg "Frigate Captain", "Ship of the line Lieutenant" etc. Various navies use these, and they all have their own names for them. Lumping them together under the English translation of the word is more economical than having separate pages for each one of each nationality, and it avoids putting, (for example) a French rank in an article under an Italian name (or vice versa).
As to your question about the article, Trek, its probably because we seem to happily use the German word, but baulk at the Russian one.
I’ve tried to rectify that, here. Xyl 54 (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Battles by people

I suspect that this was proposed or discussed before, but why aren't there categories by people? Such as "Battles involving Napoleon", "Battles involving Alexander the Great", "Battles involving George Washington", "Battles involving Simón Bolívar", etc. MBelgrano (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was ever really discussed at any length, but the obvious reason would be the fact that there's no clear divide between military leaders who ought to have such categories and those who don't. "Battles involving Napoleon" is easy; but would we take this down, to, say, "Battles involving Richard Winters"? If we do, then we're setting ourselves up to create hundreds of categories, particularly for WWI and WWII battles where participation by lower-ranking officers is well-documented; if we don't, then we're going to spend a great deal of time arguing over which personnel "deserve" such categorization.
Keep in mind, incidentally, that we do have some elements of this in the template system; see, for example, {{Campaignbox Alexander's Persian campaigns}}. Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
We can choose to categorize only by commanders. In most battles, the specific commanders of a given battle are two (one for each side) or a very short number of people. If we set aside lower-rank officers, or people who was at a battle as a mere soldier and became a commander later in his career, and consider as well the already written guideline that does not allow categories of very few elements and no potencial to grow, we could easily set a clear and objetive difference between the Napoleons and the "unknown soldiers". MBelgrano (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, that still leaves the question of how far down the chain of command one goes. Particularly for modern, large-scale battles, do we list only army commanders? Corps commanders? Division commanders? For something like, say, the Battle of the Bulge, we could be looking at dozens of important figures involved. To make things more complicated, in many cases military leaders are known in large part for the subsidiary commands they held, so limiting the categorization only to the top-level commanders in each battle would create bizarre scenarios as well; for example, Nelson's role in the Battle of Copenhagen would be omitted, as would Jackson's in the Battle of Chancellorsville.
On a slightly more pedantic note, if we're going to limit this to command staff only, "battles involving X" doesn't seem like the best wording, since mere soldiers are also involved. I'd be tempted to go with the more traditional "battles fought by X", but I'm not sure how clear that will be either. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Project incubator launched

As part of our ongoing efforts to make the project's infrastructure simpler and easier to use, we've set up an incubator within the strategy think tank. The incubator will act as a central host for new initiatives—such as proposed task forces, special projects, and other groups—as they gather interest and evolve into more permanent elements of the project's infrastructure.

Over the next few weeks, we will be rolling the remnants of the existing "working group" system into the new incubator page model. In the meantime, anyone who has an idea for a new group, or who has been running a small group out of their user space, is encouraged to make use of the incubator. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Black Project report

I apologize for the tardiness in this report, but as they say better late than never. I have taken another lap around the black project pages and I make the following findings related to them:

  • We need to establish some sort of criteria for determining at what point a black project ceases to be black; for example, the B-2 was born as a black project but is not longer black, therefore should it still be included in the list or should it be moved to a more appropriate area of coverage?
  • The article Nazi UFOs has disappeared from the category, and the article now postulates that the craft in question are more science fiction than science fact, but its still tagged as being within our scope, and therefore I am going to retain the article on the list since I feel that the article is better tracked from our angle as a black project. Objections?

Also, I would like to ask for input concerning the following sources currently in use:

For the Black Project working group, TomStar81 (Talk) 04:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Strategy think tank. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to very highly state that both designation-systems.net and vectorsite.net are Reliable Sources - they both state their own sources very clearly. abotetopsecret.com, however...I've heard tales that it's rather more a "lunatic fringe" type of site... - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 04:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the Atlas Carver was ever really a 'black project' given that it's development was reported in the international press. Flightglobal looks like a good source to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Flightglobal should be considered a RS as well. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 06:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with pravda.ru ? It's a regular Russian newspaper. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
It was also the official newspaper of the Soviet Union's Communist Party until 1991, and many of the same writers who worked for them went on to found the online Pravda. The words "tabloid" and "sensationalist" also pop up. At least according to the Pravda article...) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean we can't use Fox News as an RS? 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
In my view, yes. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree, unless we're using it as a source for what Fox News itself said about something. It has a fairly well-documented conservative bias and has been criticised for spinning stories. EyeSerenetalk 11:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
And MSNBC spins them the other way. Beware the media, regardless of what "side" they are on, for they tell you what they want you to hear! (Plus, they think you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 18:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict categories by year

Has there been some discussion here as to when conflict categories should cover a single year, and when they should cover longer time periods. For example, I notice there is a parent category called Category: 1410s conflicts which only has about 20 entries when a number of the individual year sub-categories (e.g. Category:Conflicts in 1412) have only one entry, and these are unlikely to grow in number, so are all the individual year categories needed? Eldumpo (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they're primarily there as part of a cross-referencing to the overall by-year category scheme (Category:1412, etc.). They probably wouldn't be necessary simply to subdivide the conflict categories themselves, but they do seem to provide some useful navigation across the entire category structure. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Crimp now open

The A-Class review for Operation Crimp is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Sangju (1950) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Sangju (1950) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Ebelsberg now open

The peer review for Battle of Ebelsberg is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Partner peer review for MUD now open

The peer review for MUD, an article within the scope of the Video games WikiProject, is now open. The Video games WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

looking for a reference on Third Reich military batons

I just did a fair amount of structuring and copy editing at baton (symbol). The article lacks references and is mostly details of the bejewelled field marshal Nazi batons. If you all have any refs or know how to find refs describing these objects, would appreciate adding them to the article. I tried and came up empty. TCO (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tracked vehicle up for deletion

FYI, Tracked vehicle has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OR on the Blitz - second opinion appreciated

Hi all.

My daily reading today threw up this post critiquing our article on the Blitz, which seems to me to be pretty to the point. I've removed the offending section pending discussion, but a few more eyeballs wouldn't hurt. Shimgray | talk | 21:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Shimgray, well-spotted. I fully support your alterations and will watchlist the article. EyeSerenetalk 10:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Cold War now open

The peer review for Cold War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of italics for Luftwaffe, etc.

I'm currently having a mild dispute with an editor on the Fiat G.91 article, per diff. What's the guideline on the use of "Luftwaffe" and other military organizations/units that have commonly known names? Per WP:ITALICS, "Loanwords or phrases that have common use in English, however—praetor, Gestapo, samurai, esprit de corps, e.g., i.e.—do not require italicization." Wouldn't this apply to Luftwaffe, Bundeswehr, etc, also? - Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To Luftwaffe, but not Bundeswehr IMO; insufficiently common. TBH, I'd use ital for all cases, common use be damned. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I would too -- isn't it italicized in normal scholarly sources anyway? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how "Luftwaffe" is an less common than "Bundeswehr", at least not in aviation military history topics. (Btw, "Bundeswehr" gets 7,580,000 GHits, while "Luftwaffe" gets 8,940,000 - so the latter is not less uncommon on the internet anyway.) You'd have to give me some "normal scholarly sources" too look at se check for usage of italics for "Luftwaffe", as I don't regulary read such works. Most of the "normal" aviation sources I consult, such as those listed at User:BilCat#Frequently-used Sources, don't use italics for "Luftwaffe". if I recall correctly. I can check all of the relevant ones on that list that cover "Luftwaffe" topics, and list their format, if necessary. - BilCat (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I read the replies to your post as arguing that Luftwaffe is more common than Bundeswehr, not less. However, to answer your original point, personally I'd be inclined not to italicise Luftwaffe, but possibly I would italicise Bundeswehr. Tbh I tend to operate according to my own (subjective) view - thus Gruppenführer but not Leutnant (because I believe the latter is sufficiently close to the English term to be understood) and Fallschirmjäger but not Panzer etc. EyeSerenetalk 12:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
My apologies if I misunderstood the first 2 responses. If the editors could clarify their comemnts,it would be helpful. - BilCat (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with EyeSerene - for example, I don't italicize Kriegsmarine or Kaiserliche Marine, as both are very commonly used in scholarly sources on the subject. I would, however, italicize more obscure words like "schlachtschiff or "große kreuzer." Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I italicize most German words, except Panzer and probably Luftwaffee. I would italicize German ranks more so because some are similar in spelling to English so they are not mistaken as misspellings. However I notice that the statement from the MoS on Italics is "do not require italicization" which is not the same as "should not be italicized" (my italics ;)). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If in doubt, consult a good usage-based dictionary that indicates italicization. The CanOD indicates Luftwaffe as not in italics, but omits Bundeswehr, so italicize it as foreign. Neither Gruppenführer nor Leutnant is English at all, so translate, or italicize as a common noun (but not as part of a name). If you must write Leutnant, especially italicize it or it looks like a misspelling. Panzer/panzers is a common English word, but it's not the same as the German word Panzer/Panzern. We should keep the same conventions in both military and non-military Wikipedia articles, so italicize the non-English Kriegsmarine, or write “German navy.” —Michael Z. 2010-12-01 16:28 z

I would italicize both Luftwaffe and Bundeswehr, because they are not commonly used in everyday English. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 17:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Luftwaffe is often used in a historical context, and in popular fiction, much like SS, Wehrmacht, Gestapo, KGB, etc. Bundeswehr (the only one of these terms my spellchecker flags) is just German for “the army of Germany,” so it is less well-known.
But come to think of it, I don't think proper names are usually italicized anyway. If you mean “the army of Germany,” then just write that in English. But if you use it for “Federal Armed Forces of Germany” then you may as well use the unitalicized translingual proper name Bundeswehr. —Michael Z. 2010-12-01 18:09 z
I don't use italics for foreign language words like 'Luftwaffe' as this is rare in books and other sources. Moreover, using italics for something which translates as simply 'Air force' seems unnecessary as there's a clear English-language equivalent term. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Per request for clarification, I meant "common use outside the specialists". I've never actually seen Bundeswehr, frex, in a newspaper, so in common use it isn't.
I'm also broadly in GraemeLeggett for many of the same reasons. Just because it's common not to italicize doesn't mean we should slip to the vulgar. Tho it appears many editors consider "not needed" as meaning "do not" & I've been more/less told as much. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:57 & 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
FWIW I think it’s best to italicise all non-English terms, so we know where we are. I certainly don’t think it’s wrong to italicize them if found, though it would be to go round un-italicizing them.
I also think it’s best to use English words instead; why put Luftwaffe instead of "German Air Force"? I notice the article (on an Italian aircraft!) uses "Italian Air Force" in preference to Aeronautica Militare; why the special treatment for the Luftwaffe?
"Luftwaffe" is familiar to English readers, but I’d hazard a guess what people are referring to there is the German Air Force of the Second World War, not the current incarnation of that body. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd say "Luftwaffe" is commonly enough used in English that it can be de facto considered an English word by this point, defintion, 'the air force of Germany (esp. 1933-1945)'. Remember, English doesn't just borrow words from other languages... ;) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 02:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Sinyavin Offensive (1942) now open

The peer review for Sinyavin Offensive (1942) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Iskra now open

The peer review for Operation Iskra is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) now open

The peer review for Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

KAL 007 related article at AfD

Heads up that KAL 007: The Naval Search is at AfD here. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 02:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox military post

I would like to see the creation of an Infobox military post to use instead of the Template:Infobox political post to use on articles such as Chief of the Defence Staff (United Kingdom). However, having looked at Help:Infobox, this seems complex. Can anyone help? Greenshed (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, it's easy enough to create a new infobox template; we can certainly take care of that side of things. Having said that, the key element of the process isn't the template work itself, but rather defining what fields we want the infobox to have. In this case, I'm not entirely certain what you're looking for; presumably {{infobox political post}} is missing something that you need, but I'm not sure what that might be.
(Generally speaking, if the difference would only be one or two fields, it'd probably be easier to just add them to the existing infobox, particularly as there's an ongoing effort to consolidate biographical infoboxes. I wouldn't recommend creating an entirely new template unless we're going to add a dozen or more fields.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I was particularly hoping to replace "style" with "rank" and also add a field for "command" or something like that. Greenshed (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cold War expert needed to deal with diehard Kissinger apologist TheTimesAreAChanging

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) is just squashing the death tolls of anything related to Kissinger and Nixon into the ground and pumping up communist stats to very high levels everywhere, and editorialising everything and just blanking random stuff embarrassing to kissinger eg Cambodia YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with YellowMonkey. The editor needs development to help them understand that verifiability means including all significant verifiable narratives, not only the ones that "are true". Often the editor is removing mid-to-low quality verifiable sources, and replacing them with sources that are as low quality, or lower; but while doing so, changes between a limited half-narrative towards another limited half-narrative. There's no evidence the editor has a command of academic opinion in high quality reliable sources in the fields they're editing, rather, it looks like a cherry picking exercise. But the editor does understand the basic principle of verifiability; has access to sources; and could be developed from what amounts to pushing POV, into a masterful editor. They need care and attention, preferably from someone who shares their area of interest, to develop fully. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This project likes bragging all over the place about how great it is. Time to stand up then. Cambodian Civil War, an A-class article by RM Gillespie (talk · contribs) is being messed up by this guy who is blanking parts about the war's negative effects in the lead. I've used up my quota of reverts YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I happen to have Shawcross myself, and consider it a rather nice read. That aside, this editor is clearly...well, he says *you* are randomly blanking and should be banned, YM. 'Nuff said there, I think. I'm watching the page now. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 05:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Black Friday (1945) FAC needs further comments

The featured article candidacy for the Black Friday (1945) article (which I nominated and which covers an Allied air raid on German shipping in Norway) hasn't recieved any comments for over a week. Any comments and votes (including opposes, of course) would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Friday (1945)/archive1. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion notifications

Taliban Deputy Defense Minister is at Articles for Deletion here, while List of army size by country is at AfD here. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Sangju (1950) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Sangju (1950); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Crimp needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Crimp; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Eastern Front (World War II)

Hi, I have a few questions regarding this category tree:

  1. "World war II" is a subcategory of "Military history of <Country>" (via "Wars involving <Country>"). This results in, say, Poston War Relocation Center being part of "Military history of Romania" Is this a bug or a feature?
  2. "Military history of Bulgaria during World War II", "Military history of Poland during World War II", "Yugoslavia during World War II", "Eastern European World War II resistance movements " are included into "Eastern Front (World War II)" and again into "World War II Eastern European Theatre". Can anyone explain the need for two of these cats (EF(WWII) and WWIIEET)?
  3. What purpose serves the "Soviet–German War" category? It is redundant with "Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II" and currently contains some copies of other branches of the tree. --illythr (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above (#Great_Patriotic_War_vs._World_War_II) may be relevant here. It certainly looks like there is some duplication and redundancy in the cats, but I don't think anything has been agreed yet about naming so it may be best to wait on the outcome of the project discussion. EyeSerenetalk 09:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like that discussion's been archived. There's no "GPW" cat anyway. The only relevant element seems to be that the user who's been adding the "Soviet-German war" cat everywhere is the same one who strives to eliminate all mention of "GPW" from enwiki. --illythr (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Korean War -- is there an end in sight 55 years later?

With the recent (November 2010) skirmishes between nK & sK, a flurry of edits has taken place. One thing I've noticed is how these various incidents get added to the Korean War templates, categories, and articles, 55 years after the s:Korean Armistice Agreement was signed. Part of the situation revolves around the fact that the Korean War ended with Armistice, which certain editors interpret as a ceasefire and which, in turn, leads to a conclusion in their minds that the Koreans are "technically" still at war with each other. Their biggest argument is that no Peace Treaty was ever signed between the two Koreas. True, the Koreans have had fighting and provocations along the DMZ and NLL for years. At the same time, there is ample WP:RS to say the Korean War ended in 1953. They have had diplomatic visits & talks, trade & tourism, and sports (Olympic) cooperation over the years. This is ample evidence to support the "truth" that the Korean War ended with the Armistice. (Much discussion has taken place in article edits and talk pages, and rather than continue to rehash that discussion here, I invite WikiProject Military History editors to look at those talk pages.) SO I ASK -- shouldn't WP:MIL be involved in this process? In my very quick review, I don't see KW articles as part of the main concern for WP:MIL. (Yes, I see there are huge backlogs!) With this in mind, I ask for a WP:MHPR of these concerns. (And I'll probably be tagging some articles asking for WP:MHPR.) Please help -- establishing an end to the KW will do a lot towards preventing this mess from getting worse. (Or has KW become the forgotten war in more than one sense?) Thanks for your help in this regard. --S. Rich (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There's also plenty of reliable sources to indicate that while de facto the war ended in 1953, de jure it is still in progress. Despite the lack of open hostilities, legally, the two Koreas are still at war. Which, to be completely clear how I stand, though, does not mean more recent incidents should be considered "part of the Korean War"! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
While I'd agree the de facto war is over, it would be factually incorrect to say it is, since there has been no treaty. My thoughts would be to create some kind of "post armistice conflicts" page and spin off that section of the KW template into its own template to separate post-armistice conflicts into their own era. —Ed!(talk) 16:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, adding post-1953 incidents to the Korean War article, template, category, etc. is the wrong thing to do. And an article on the situation from 1953 to now is a good idea; it might help to draw a line through the thing. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm -- I see where Sweden fought a war with the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the war ended with the Treaty of Stuhmsdorf. But 30 years later the parties were fighting again during the Second Northern War. That war ended with the Treaty of Oliva. What gives? If a peace treaty is required to end a war, does the fact that fighting breaks out again mean that the first war actually continued? In the example I cite here, there were a series of Polish–Swedish wars. So if we follow the logic of the extended Korean War editors, who say the recent and continuing clashes between the Koreans are all part of the same Korean War (because no peace treaty exists), then the "Polish-Swedish wars" article is misnamed -- it should be titled the "Polish-Swedish War", even though the conflict/s was/were spread out over 200 years. (And not all of the conflicts ended with peace treaties.) But, "Oh, wait!" the extended war editors will exclaim. That was [a] war between two countries, so it is possible for one war to end and another to start up later. In the Korean War we have this single, protracted war between the North and South, albeit with US/UN & PRC/USSR involvement, and the Armistice did not end it. Well, again history can assist. If we look at the Three Kingdoms of Korea we see lots of fighting going on within Korea. (Indeed, not just in this period, but before and after.) With this in mind, according to the logic of the extended Korean War editors, all of the wars within Korea should be considered one war because none of them ended with a peace treaty. And with this logic in mind, we can, we should add Goguryeo–Tang Wars to our [Category:Battles of the Korean War] and Template:Campaignbox Korean War templates. --S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Problom is there was no peace treaty ending the Korean war, just a cease fire that has (more or less) held for 50 years. There are otehr examples (such as poor old Andoras Adoran-German war 1914 - 1939, the cost in lives must have been horendous). At the end of the day whilst tehre do appear to be a few RS that consider the war not to be over its also true to say this seems to be aminoirty view.18:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
The issue here is the same as the one with the "Eastern Front" vs "Great Patriotic War" discussion going on on this page: what does our readership recognize? Virtually all sources will say the war ended in 1953. The problem is that the "Korean War" in its entirety is actually two simultaneous wars: A civil war (1946 - Present) and a proxy war (1950 - 1953) we need to address these two things in separate articles. They may be inextricably intertwined but they are not the same thing. —Ed!(talk) 05:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I would direct this discussion here: [17] per below. —Ed!(talk) 05:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Did the Korean War Actually end?

If any editors are interested there is a discussion on the Korean war talk page regarding whether or not the Korean War has ended and whether or not the various incidents along the border since 1953 can be considered part of the Korean War. The current discussion can be found here [[18]] Thanks!XavierGreen (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please also note another discussion going on above. —Ed!(talk) 05:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: last 15 hours of voting in the ArbCom elections

Now is your final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections for new members of ArbCom. Voting will close just before midnight UTC tonight, Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Navy Command Histories

U.S. naval ship command histories are developed in accordance with OPNAVINST 5750.7 and OPNAVINST 5750.12; they are submitted to the Director of Naval History (N09BH), Washington Navy Yard; and they are deposited with the Naval History & Heritage Command. These histories are available online in PDF format but are not searchable at the Naval History & Heritage Command website.

  1. Since these command histories offer excellent primary source material, I felt that their inclusion would make an excellent addition, and I initially tried adding these command histories to the Bibliography or External links section of the article of the specific ship and naval air squadron.
  2. User:RP459 questioned the above approach as it pertains to the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) article.
  3. As an alternative, I bundled the command histories into a List article that is linked to the specific ship article via its See also section.
  4. Please note that I got an Original Barnstar for the above solution/compromise from User:RP459 on 9 September 2010 .
  5. I subsequently received a posting dated 4 December 2010 from Buckshot06 informing me that this listing approach in not appropriate per Talk:Strategic_Air_Command#The Bibliography and MOS standards.
  6. Buckshot06 suggested that these command histories should be included in the specific ship article.

Request: Could the WT:MILHIST gurus provide some guidance on resolving this issue consistent with my initial objective of providing access with these U.S. Navy command histories? Thanks! Marcd30319 (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marc, I'm afraid that your post is rather difficult to follow. Articles such as List of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) command histories don't seem sustainable to me. They clearly don't meet the notability standards (WP:N) and violate the rule against creating articles which contain nothing but links to other websites (WP:NOTLINK). The US Navy's history website isn't loading for me at the moment, but I'd suggest just including a link to the Naval history website's entry on the ship (if this exists). Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Nick-D. I have revised my original posting. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
To summarize this post in a sentance, Marc wants us to use the links to the command histories, like the ones on List of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) command histories as refs for articles like USS Enterprise (CVN-65). Buggie111 (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Buggie111, I believe your summary is unfortunately incorrect. Marc tried to "initially ... [add] these command histories to the Bibliography or External links section of the [relevant] article ... ." But RP459 did not like this. It is my belief that in line with MOS sections on standard annexes, and the link in Talk:Strategic Air Command, that RP459 is incorrect. All supporting material should go on the article for which it is relevant. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree there is no policy reason why these links could not appear under Ext links or in the refs for the given ship. They might be refused, on case by case basis, on other grounds - being Primary? source when a better source is available, adding little extra content (while detailed they carry a lot of inconsequential detail - though perhaps I picked a bad couple to look over), adding them all for a ship with a long career might overwhelm the external links section. And the List of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) command histories article is untenable and should go to AfD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no hurry. Let's finish discussing here first.
I agree that adding them in the external links – despite the length – is the right way to go. We could also create a central repository on a project page, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/U.S. Navy Command Histories. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see Category:Carrier Strike Groups for the full list of carrier command history articles; there are others dealing with destroyers etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I included the lists of command histories for the Ticonderoga class cruisers Antietam, Bunker Hill, and Mobile Bay because they are assigned to their respective carrier strike groups. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: Command histories include a great deal of information, including a detailed operational chronology, that is used by Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships as well as the "Year In Review" for Naval Aviation News. Given the fact that several Nimitz-class carriers — USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), USS George Washington (CVN-73), USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74), and USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) — do not have DANFS online entries, these command histories can be useful. In fact, the Carl Vison article is using command histories as references, as well as the Carrier Strike Group articles that I have written. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Marcd30319, the consensus here is pretty clear: they need to go in the ext links section. Please consider starting merging them back in, and if RP459 disagrees, refer him to this discussion and MOS:APPENDIX. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
And after the merging is complete, what about the deletion of the "List of ....command history" articles? If there are no objections it could go Prod rather than AfD.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I have moved the command history lists to their respective ship articles. and I have deleted the individual list articles. Thank you for your assistance. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) Marc30319, one other issue with that category: it should only contain the Carrier Strike Group and maybe Battle Group entries (eg HST BG or Commander Carrier Division Four (ComCarDiv 4)). It should not contain the destroyer articles (they go in the Category:Destroyers of the United States Navy or similar categories) or the carrier air wings (which should go in Category:United States Navy Carrier air wings, under 'Aviation units and formations of the USN' or some such). Categories should only contain things that are included in the title, not extra articles. The linkages work through the text of the articles. Have I made this clear what I mean? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Carrrier Strike Groups integrate carriers, their air wings, their escorting Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers, and their assigned destroyer squadrons into a single unit. Also, in the case of Carrier Strike Group Fourteen, the only ships assigned are the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers USS Philippine Sea (CG-58) and USS Gettysburg (CG-64). It is this force integration that is the raison d'être for carrier strike groups, and these units are permanently assigned to their respective carrier strike group. Therefore, including carrier air wings, as well as the assigned Tico cruisers and destroyer squadrons, within Category:Carrier Strike Group is both appropriate and consistent. Marcd30319 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
While I see your thinking, to me this seems similar to putting the 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery in the category:Brigades of the British Army because it is currently attached to the 7th Armoured Brigade. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
We well understand your point about IDTC workup and integration of varied ships through a training cycle into one formation under a single ISIC. But do you understand how this would work logically Marc? Every ship that ever served in the Atlantic Fleet would go directly in the Atlantic Fleet category. It makes the categories impossible to use. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not intend to include every DDG and FFG assigned to an active CARSTRKGRU within this category, just their respective DESRON. Nor do I intend to include the AOE or SSN that may deploy with a CARSTRKGRU. At most, Carrier Strike Group category will encompass 11 CVNs, 10 CVWs, maybe 19 CGs, 11 DESRONs, and earlier CVBGs for historical reasons. Please note that the official web site for each CARSTKGRU lists its flagship CVN, its embarked CVW, and its assigned Tico CG and DESRON, except CARSTKGRU FOURTEEN which has only two Tico CGs. This seems consistent and logical, and it represents current U.S. Navy operational and doctrinal policies as well as ongoing deployment patterns. If this is not agreeable, then I suggest that only CARSTRKGRU articles and their earlier CVBG antecedents be linked to the Carrier Strike Group category, not individual CVNs, CVWs, CGs, DESRONs, etc., which will be listed in the individual article's infobox. Marcd30319 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you risk overwhelming the infobox (with blue to boot) if you add all the components to the infobox. For example I would fill in "Size" in the unit infobox in terms such as "1 aircraft carrier, 1 helicopter carrier, 4 cruisers, 3 naval air squadrons". The infobox is for at a glance and there's plenty of room in articles for the full Order of Battle. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Marc30319, your first solution is exactly right. CARSTKGRUs only go should go in the category. I'm not worried about the infobox; others may be. If you check the MILMOS on units, you will find that the most up to date name of the unit is preferred, which means that the Carrier Group and Carrier Division histories ought to be merged into the CARSTKGRU articles. CARSTKGRU is only the latest term for what started out as Carrier Divisions (?) - correct me if I'm wrong. COMCARDIV 4, for example, today may be a Carrier Strike Group itself. Do you know the full history of COMCARDIV 4? I believe it turned into CARGRU 4, but did CARGRU then disband after STKFLTLANT was inactivated? Appreciate any data you may have. Thanks for being willing to listen, and kind regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think a section called 'Current Composition 2010 would be the best approach. This is what was done for the Commander, Naval Surface Forces Atlantic article, and the Use section could be left blank within the infobox. Now, Carrier Division Four (CarDiv4) can be traced back to World War Two, and CarDiv4 served as administrative billet for Commander Naval Air Force Pacific (ComAirPac) but operationally, Commader Carrier Division (ComCarDiv) served as a task group commander within the Fast Carrier Task Force. This administrative-operational duality continued into the post-war Navy. Thus when ComCarCarDiv 4 deployed to the U.S. Sixth Fleet, this flag officer would serve as a task group commander for Task Force 60. In 1973, CarDiv 4 was redesignated as Carrier Group Four (CarGru 4), but the previous administrative-operational duality continued. According to Polmar's Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet, Reagan-era carrier battle groups (CVBG) began to integrate into a more pemanent formations that evolved into carrier strike groups. According to GlobalSEcurity.org, during this period, CarGru 4 became the carrier training coordinator for Naval Air Force Atlatic. Effective 1 October 2004, Carrier Strike Group Four was created and CarCarDiv 4 was disestablished, with its training functions absorbed by U.S. Second Fleet. My approach would be Carrier Division (including Carrier Group), then named carrier strike group, and finally numbered carrier strike group. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the fused admin/op dual command structure - see my recent edits to Task Force 76. But we have to go with the formal name of the formation. If I understand correctly, the 'HST BG' etc was an informal name for the formation technically known as ComCarGru (whatever number). I used to have a Naval Aviation magazine 2004 article listing the CarGru/CruDesGru transition to CarStkGrus. This under 2nd Fleet was the kind of listing it was. Thus CarDiv - CruDesGru/CarGru - CarStkGru. You'll see at 10th Guards Uralsko-Lvovskaya Tank Division my listing of multiple unit designations in the infobox with dates. What do you think of this approach? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Almirante Latorre-class battleship now open

The featured article candidacy for Almirante Latorre-class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Allen West (politician)

Just an "FYI" for anyone who has the time and/or inclination to get involved. There's a bit of a minor tiff on this article about a high-profile ex-US Army Lt Col who apparently retired after an incident during a detainee interrogation in Iraq. I think the editors in dispute on the article - both recently blocked for 24 hrs at ANI - might benefit from some friendly guidance about the appropriate weight to give to such information in the article lede. I've left a note on the talk page but I don't generally work with WP:BLPs so expert input would be welcome. EyeSerenetalk 09:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion notices, 9 December

USS Indianapolis in popular culture and List of references to guns and butter in popular culture are at Articles for Deletion here and here. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs involving articles within the scope of this project should be added to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military (which is well worth watchlisting). I don't think they generally need to be announced here. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

TFA Requests

For anyone interested, there are a couple of MilHist articles at TFA Requests right now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea) FAC needs further comments.

The FAC for 766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea) is on its 23rd day, currently with 2 support and none opposed. Additional comments and votes would be appreciated. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea)/archive1 —Ed!(talk) 22:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Russian Federation discontinuity

I'm curious as to why many Soviet Union military history articles are merged with the Russian Federation military history, where as the Russian Empire articles are not.

It seems to me that the Soviet Union is a different country from the Russian Federation having different form of government, national borders, strategy, etc.

Although it undoubtedly inherited a lot of equipment from the Soviet Union, its personnel had been re-employed under a new constitution, and the personnel that chose to serve new states of former republics were re-employed after swearing allegiances to those new countries also.

Many made claims that RF defense policy is but a continuation of the Soviet policy, but why hasn't this argument been made in respect to the Russian Empire and Soviet Union? The Soviet Union too inherited hardware and units from the Russian Empire, and fought to regain former borders, including the Baltic states and Finland in 1939-40 to mention a few.

One example is the rather confusing attempt to 'continue' histories of former Soviet military units in their new-state guises. True they may have administratively retained old names for a time, but constitutionally they are not same units, having changed uniforms, flags, and most importantly the authority of the RF Duma under which they function. The Soviet Union also gained armies, corps and divisions from the Russian Empire, so maybe those should be included in the articles also?120.18.31.237 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't speak for the articles, but I do know it's category naming policy not to lump together political bodies that have changed names. In the article case, I'd say that if the unit can be distinctly traced through the changeover periods, they should be covered in a single article. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
For articles, the usual practice is to cover a unit that formally traces its lineage trough several militaries in a single article (see, for example, the usual treatment of such cases in Commonwealth countries). In the case of the Soviet Union/Russian Federation, this tended to be the case; with few exceptions, Soviet military units were not reconstituted, and continued to trace their lineage to their original, Soviet roles. In the case of the Russian Empire/Soviet Union, however, most units did not trace lineage past the transition; recall that most Soviet Units were originally constituted as Red Army units, not as Russian Imperial Army units. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to corrobate what Kirill has said. I've done a very large amount of research on fSU/Russian units over the years since 1990, and, to take one example, the 10th Guards Uralsko-Lvovskaya Tank Division was moved from (East) Germany to Boguchar in the Moscow Military District. It was a Soviet Ground Forces formation in 1990. It 'became' a Russian Ground Forces formation almost by default. It was not moved back into Russia until 1994 (one MRR) and finally was fully in place only a couple of years later. By this time it was definitely a Russian formation. A clearer example is the Northern Fleet; the signboard at the Main Navy Staff in Moscow changed from 'Soviet' to 'Russian' but nothing changed with the fleet; same with Pacific Fleet as well. Basically many major formations saw very little change. What is described as a 'rather confusing attempt to 'continue' histories' actually reflects exactly what happened - which is what Wikipedia should reflect. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that a good analogy seems to be Commonwealth regiments here - they often went through some pretty drastic upheavals of the political authority above them, but we still treat them as the same entity, more or less, throughout. Some British regiments (eg the Royal Scots) were nominally in the employ of several European monarchs, then England, then the UK; some Indian ones such as Skinner's Horse went from being institutions of a private company to ones of a colonising power and then of an independent state.
WRT Russia, were there Imperial units that transferred their loyalty directly to the Bolsheviks? My understanding had been that they mostly just disbanded, but I certainly could be wrong. Shimgray | talk | 16:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Enduring Freedom - Spain

Can we have a few eyes on this WP:SYNTH article please? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Might make an half-decent blog entry if a lot less rambling and the title appeared as a term somewhere in the article or the source (only one English) cited and you could tell content from opinion and some of the referred to "analysts" were cited instead of being an amorphous mass... I can keep going... <<Sigh>> PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Most of the article is a blatant copyvio. The article title, at the very least, is wrong. This editor also recently started the Dano-Swedish War (1470-1471) article, but I can't find any sources which confirm that this war actually occurred (though I'm not at all familiar with European history of this period). Can anyone confirm or deny that this is was a real war? The article rather oddly included citations to websites covering the US Civil War, which made me rather suspicious. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Errr...what? What?! What is this I don't even... Er, needless to say, this should be prodded. At the very least. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Dano-Swedish War (1470-1471) certainly happened and the article is broadly accurate as far as I can tell, though stylistically it needs a bit of work.Monstrelet (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fusō class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Fusō class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for SMS Bayern (1915) now open

The A-Class review for SMS Bayern (1915) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Peter Lumsden now open

The peer review for Peter Lumsden is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Action of 9 February 1799 now open

The peer review for Action of 9 February 1799 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hafnium controversy

FYI Hafnium controversy is being debated at its talk page. A user also seems to think this is only a WPphysics topic even though DARPA studied the matter in weapons research. 65.93.15.73 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This also applies to Induced gamma emission. 65.93.15.73 (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See WT:PHYSICS where the tendentious editor is mentioned and their WP:OWN-like problems. 65.93.15.73 (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with renaming Belgo-Arab War

Hey guys, I just created the article Belgo-Arab War and want to rename it, but am unsure what the most proper name is. French Wikipedia and Commons both call this conflict "Congo Free State's campaign against the Arabo-Swahilis," which seems a little cumbersome. Only one source uses Belgo-Arab War, and most other sources just describe it without giving it a name. Right now I think the Commons and French Wikipedia title is my best bet, but I wondered if you guys had any other suggestions. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't suppose 'Belgo-Zanzibari War' would work? '-Arab' makes me assume it took place in the Middle East. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 05:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe "Congo Free State campaign against the Congo Arabs"? --Cerebellum (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Dutch-language sources call it the 'Arabian campaign' or the 'subjugation of Eastern Congo', http://books.google.nl/books?id=7cOr7D-HHBsC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=belg+congo+tip+1892&source=bl&ots=6isveTre4e&sig=IJznr6xsH0cRVwSLjSQjstmmdLU&hl=nl&ei=-wr9TPXhFsSfOuuggdUK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=belg%20congo%20tip%201892&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by JurSchagen (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Correlates of War list it as the "Belgian-Tib War of 1892-1894". "Tib" here is presumably Tippu Tip; this approach seems to focus on the second side being a group of individual interests, rather than a political entity. Shimgray | talk | 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly support the straightforward "Congo Free State campaign against the Arabo-Swahilis." Buckshot06 (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, there don't seem to be any better options.  Done --Cerebellum (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Commons use of "the Arabo-Swahilis" seems directly lifted from frwp; I'm not sure the phrase itself is actually used in English. Shimgray | talk | 20:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest Pacification of the Eastern Congo, which is also used by the one source that uses "Belgo-Arab War" and crops up in a GoogleBooks search. The current title is too cumbersome for me (since "Congo Free State" is not a nice adjective, and "Arabo-Swahilis" has got to be at least as confusing as a "Belgo-Arab" war in Africa). Srnec (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Terms such as 'pacification' are rather POV (for instance, whoever was being 'pacified' probably didn't see things that way!) Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
"Eastern Congo campaign"? Shimgray | talk | 19:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Real life is complicated; this is indicated in the current Congo Free State and Arabo-Swahili notations in the title. We do not need to dumb it down. I think it's perfectly good as it is. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The title may indicate that real life is complicated, but it doesn't do much good indicating who fought whom. "Congo Free State" is clear enough, although there is no mention of Belgians (which I don't mind). But what is an "Arabo-Swahili"? This term does not appear to be English, and that I do mind. I only understand the title and what it refers to because I happened to read the French WP article a few months ago. I would prefer War between the Congo Free State and Zanzibar (1892–94), or is it incorrect to call the Belgians' opponent Zanzibar? Srnec (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
We're adapting the English language here, and it grows here like it grew with the adoption of Eskimo, panzer, flak, or any number of French words you'd care to name. Language evolves, and 'Arabo-Swahili' is far more accurate than Zanzibar, because the pre-colonial polities of Africa were far less territorially defined than in modern times. Zanzibar is a completely misleading title. Arabo-Swahili is more correct. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
One concern I have (leaving aside the foreign loanword issue) is that using something as specific-sounding as "Arabo-Swahili" gives the impression to the reader that it's a common name in the literature, which really doesn't seem to be the case. If there simply isn't a standard name for something, I'd much rather we used something vague and generic rather than something highly specific - "1892-1894 war in the Eastern Congo", for example, which would be consistent with the way we title articles on current unnamed events. Shimgray | talk | 00:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'd be happy with that. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Hurrah. :-) Anyone have an objection to my moving it to 1892-1894 war in the Eastern Congo? Shimgray | talk | 19:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed category: Category:Indigenous counter-insurgency forces

It occurred to me that it might be value-added to find a way to categorise together those counter-insurgency forces drawn from within the demographics of the insurging groups, and/or of former insurgents who have been "turned" to the counter-insurgent side. I'm thinking here of groups like the Firqa (military) in Oman, Sarandoy in Afghanistan, and Kit Carson Scouts in Vietnam. Any opinions on refining the scope of the category, or its title? Any dispute as to the notability of the topic? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Rank insignia OF

{{Rank insignia OF}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.12.93 (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with a picture

I uploaded File:Iowa class aircraft carrier.jpg, but I could not specifically confirm in plain and simple english that the image is a work of the federal government and thus int he public domain. I am almost 100% sure that it is, but if anyone could conclusively find a statement to that effect I would really appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How many other people were designing Iowa aircraft carrier conversions in 1942, much less ones that would appear in an official Navy publication? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The image says " Navy Department Bureau of Ships - Preliminary Design - June 1942". So the image itself says it's a work of the Federal Government. :-) The Land (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep, what The Land said. It's not loading for me at the moment, but from memory the US Navy's historical photo website this is from includes a statement that basically everything published on it is the work of the US Government unless marked otherwise. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RML 7 pounder Mountain Gun

A US soldier in Afghanistan has forwarded me several photographs of the above gun sitting outside his garrison, and has expressed an interest in someone expanding the appropriate article with more information about their use in Afghanistan. It's about 1,000 miles too far inland for me, but is this something that someone is interested in picking up, perhaps? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the chap is a US Ranger, and the pictures are close-ups of the gun in question and in situ since the British left them there. He's willing to take more! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Réduit and redoubt

Is Réduit another word for redoubt? Please see Talk:Réduit#Proposed Merger With National Redoubt. -- PBS (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Réduit means reduce/reduced. The french for redoubt would be"redoute", so it is doubtful that both would mean the same thing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Inspection of the interwiki links also show that there is a distinct usage between réduit and redout in other languages. Compare de:Reduit and de:Redoute, for example. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

SM-65 Atlas Merge variants

I've suggested that the various variants for the SM-65 Atlas missile articles be merged into the main article. Normally variants of the same weapons system are written as subsections, rather than seperate articles. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, sounds like a good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Completed Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

fortress category tree

The entire fortress category tree has been proposed to be merged into the fort category tree, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 15. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

USS Indianapolis in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_98&oldid=403844039"