Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The April newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Raynald of Châtillon • Turabay dynasty • John Bullock Clark • Thomas Neville (died 1460) Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Unification of Germany Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Henry Biard • Johann Mickl • Battle of Saipan • Operation Barrel Roll • Fort Corcoran • T-26 • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew Peer reviews Central America under Mexican rule • Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • West Point, New York • William, Prince of Wales • Charles the Bold Good article nominees Cezary Ketling-Szemley • Treaty of Rapallo (1920) • Stephen Badlam • Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar • Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • William Henry Harrison Seeley • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Adolf von Rhemen • Masopha • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • Sam Bahadur (film) • Christopher Hill (Royal Navy officer) • The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) • HMS Tetrarch (1917) • Battle of Meligalas • Blohm & Voss BV 40 Good article reassessments Crusading movement • Kaunas Fortress • George Rogers Clark National Historical Park Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (146,985) • only work on referencing and citation (43,135) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,084) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,566) • work on structure (31,765) • only work on structure (362) • work on grammar (8,179) • only work on grammar (48) • work on supporting materials (32,661) • only work on supporting materials (1,335) • assessment (5) • assessment as lists (114) • project tags fixed (7) • assessment checklists added (11) • assessment checklists completed (25) • task forces added (306) • attention to task force coverage (680)

Military history WikiProject Main project page + talk News & open tasks Academy Core work areas Assessment Main page  → A-Class FAQ  → B-Class FAQ  → A-Class review requests  → Assessment requests  → Current statistics  → Review alert box Contests Main page  → Contest entries  → Scoring log archive  → Scoreboard archive Coordination Main page + talk  → Handbook  → Bugle newsroom talk  → ACM eligibility tracking  → Discussion alert box Incubator Main page  → Current groups and initiatives Special projects Majestic Titan talk Member affairs Membership Full list talk  → Active / Inactive  → Userboxes Awards Main page talk  →A-Class medals  →A-Class crosses  → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves Resources Guidelines Content Notability Style Templates Infoboxes  → Command structure doc · talk  → Firearm cartridge doc · talk  → Military award doc · talk  → Military conflict doc · talk  → Military installation doc · talk  → Military memorial doc · talk  → Military person doc · talk  → Military unit doc · talk  → National military doc · talk  → Military operation doc · talk  → Service record doc · talk  → Militant organization doc · talk  → Weapon doc · talk Navigation boxes doc · talk  → Campaignboxes doc · talk Project banner doc · talk Announcement & task box  → Discussion alert box  → Review alert box Template design style doc · talk Showcase Featured articles 1346 Featured lists 149 Featured topics 32 Featured pictures 473 Featured sounds 69 Featured portals 5 A-Class articles 684 A-Class lists 40 Good articles 5,396 Automated lists Article alerts Most popular articles New articles Nominations for deletion Task forces General topics Fortifications Intelligence Maritime warfare Military aviation Military culture, traditions, and heraldry Military biography Military historiography Military land vehicles Military logistics and medicine Military memorials and cemeteries Military science, technology, and theory National militaries War films Weaponry Nations and regions African military history Asian military history Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history Balkan military history Baltic states military history British military history Canadian military history Chinese military history Dutch military history European military history French military history German military history Indian military history Italian military history Japanese military history Korean military history Middle Eastern military history Nordic military history North American military history Ottoman military history Polish military history Roman and Byzantine military history Russian, Soviet and CIS military history South American military history South Asian military history Southeast Asian military history Spanish military history United States military history Periods and conflicts Classical warfare Medieval warfare Early Muslim military history Crusades Early Modern warfare Wars of the Three Kingdoms American Revolutionary War Napoleonic era American Civil War World War I World War II Cold War Post-Cold War Related projects Blades Espionage Firearms Pritzker Military Museum & Library Piracy Ships edit · changes Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012. This project has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: David Stahel (18 July 2018). "The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of 'Lost Victories'?". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Retrieved 1 April 2019. Noam Cohen (September 8, 2021). "One Woman's Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia". Wired (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021. Shortcut WT:MILHIST

Any assistance to add appropriate notations to the Chinese 64th Group Army to reflect its participation in this battle of October 1951 would be welcomed. Mztourist I see you have edited the battle article. Do feel free to make additions to 64th Army should you wish. Cheers and Happy New Year to all!!

Earlier in the month I posted an edit request at Talk:Kathleen Hicks seeking an editor to improve the article's accuracy, specifically regarding her status as the highest ranking woman to have served at DoD. Although the sourcing is unambiguous, I should not make the edit myself; I have a financial COI because I am working directly with the Hicks family. I'm hopeful an editor from this wikiproject will consider implementing it, and I'd be happy to answer any questions on that article's talk page. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your client's request seems vain. I once knew a Lance Coolie who was just happy to be a Lance Corporal of Marines. She can (rightly or wrongly) be proud of her career accomplishments. That she's paying you to advocate for changes to an online encyclopedia just to clarify for the audience how important she is certainly makes her out of touch with all those uniformed personnel subordinate to her. I guess getting paid to edit is better than not getting paid, so I cast no stones upon those who monetized their hobby. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Oops. I just fulfilled the request; it seemed reasonable and upheld by the source. I admit I didn't read that^^^ to mean they were getting paid to edit specifically, but rather, that they had a broader connection. So it turns out: I am the fool, and a penniless one at that. ——Serial Number 54129 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the update, Serial. And I respect your view, Chris. What Wikipedia says matters, including to those it writes about. Perhaps it would be best if there was no need for someone in my role, but my intention is to propose only well-documented changes to content, and I always strive to make Wikipedia a better resource for its readers. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my fees have suddenly gone up. Edits to DoD articles in return for freeing Leonard Peltier, cheap at twice the price. ¡Venceremos! ¡Por vida!"  :) ——Serial Number 54129 19:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against you, WWB. You were asked to propose a change and you did so. We can debate its relevance or importance but you provided reliable sources and no doubt some people will find it interesting (there wouldn't be reliable sources otherwise!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not there was money involved, Hicks was the first woman DepSecDef, and that is notable. Good point to make clearly, though just saying that she was first woman DepSecDef should have been clear years ago. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in the week I posted another edit request on Kathleen Hicks' article, and since no one has replied yet, figured I might as well post again here. The article currently omits an important presidentially appointed position, and certain board roles are out-of-date. If anyone here is willing to review my proposed changes, I'd be grateful. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all - I hope to solicit the group's advice on a referencing question.

I'm continuing a small series of articles I'm writing on the interwar Czechoslovak Gendarmerie with one on Jan Klán, a Gendarmerie fighter ace. After WWII, Klán worked for a specialized agency of the U.S. while holding the job description "international sales manager" for Piper Aircraft at the company's offices in South America and Europe.

This (the part about his work for the U.S.), unfortunately, is not documented in any source and, per our WP:V requirements I need to simply say he worked for Piper and leave it at that. However, I happened across an obit (it's a paid obit so is WP:SELFPUB) that obliquely says he "served the United States government in sensitive positions in Europe and South America". Do you think this line from the obit (cited to the obit instead of Wikivoice) is reasonable to just drop in a footnote as I have it here? Or should I omit it entirely? Thanks for your advice! Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave it as it is. Technically, unless he wrote his own obituary, I would not consider it self-published. I think it is not an exceptional claim from a questionable source, which is also shown under this section in the guideline. I can't think of a reason why a survivor would make such a claim if it was bogus. You are not drawing any conclusions by simply citing the text. (The implication that one would presumably make is that he was a spy, but neither the source nor your citation says that outright.) I do think that putting in a footnote in the form which you used is appropriate as full disclosure. If others differ, I hope they will comment. Donner60 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donner60 - thanks very much for this feedback. It sounds like your line of thought here is parallel to my own. It's helpful for me to get this validation to make sure I'm not cutting some corners too closely. Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaunas Fortress has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should ARA Bermejo and ARA Pilcomaijo be added to the respective articles. From The Times of 21 June 1875 ("A Formidable Gunboat". The Times. No. 28347. London. 21 June 1875. col F, p. 8.) - "The Bermejo and Pilcomaijo are of the Arrow and Bonetta class." Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Bermejo to the Arrow-class gunvessel article. We don't appear to have an article on the Bonetta-class sloop that Pilcomaijo was a member of. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Rogers Clark National Historical Park has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is over the use of a term. I could link to the particular issue but I'd like to get an abstract answer that is applicable in other articles.

If a 'thing' has an official name but it is commonly called by another name, then it seems right that if the unofficial usage is commonplace (and significantly so), then it seems right to include this in the article as its probably a term a reader will recognise (or may be looking for or expecting to see). In proving the usage of the unofficial name, official sources are unlikely to be supportive - you're not going to get the navy saying their latest warship is popularly known as the "grey shooty-shooty boat". So majority of evidence would be in the aggregate, here's a book with the term in the title, here's a book with it in the text on page 50, here's this website, that blog etc.

Having written that, the question I think I'm asking is how does one show popular usage of a term?. And how can one reference the usage concisely? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about "A (known as B)"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was how I wanted to phrase it but there was objection that the term was "not official" and used by "fanboys" (the word is used in the title of one of Ray Sturtivant's books FWIW ). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then try "A (popularly called B)" instead. Common names aren't always official, as anyone dealing with military history should know. There are any number of examples out there, honestly. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try "A, named in some sources as B," and then add a reference for B. If there are objections about references in the lead section, you can mention the alternate name in the article body and cite it there. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A (sometimes called B)" Someone will object whatever you choose. ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I've tried again with a ref to the RAF Museum that uses the term. Time will tell if it is reverted.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to throw out the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark as a point for potential consideration here. "Aardvark" was only applied as the "official popular name" at the ceremony for retiring the aircraft from service. Not trying to use this example to argue for, or against. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point, this is an odd or rare one. The US retired the F-111 then, in 1996 and Australia followed in 2010. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XXIII article has been edited to include Bathurst-class corvettes, specifically the museum ship HMAS Castlemaine, citing (in the edit summary) this YouTube video: HMAS Castlemaine - Wonderfully Preserved History by "Drachinifel", in which he reads a plaque on the gun identifying it as a Mk XXIII. However, our article on the Bathurst-class identifies the main gun as a QF 4-inch naval gun Mk XIX. I suspect that the plaque may be referring to the high-angle mounting, but can't find a reference to back this up. Can anybody help please? Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website Castlemaine's guns were removed post war. When it later underwent a refit to become a museum ship, a new QF 4 inch gun was installed. The new QF 4 inch isn't specified, but that could be the cause of the discrepancy. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - while the new gun isn't specified, the page does mention an XXIII mounting was fitted in 1943. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid, many thanks. I have reverted the edit and amended the HMAS Castlemaine article accordingly. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

State defense forces has a hatnote for countries/states/nations, but there doesn't seem to be an article for provincial military/provincial militaries, the general topic for "state defense force" that this U.S. focused article should have as a more general wider coverage article parent. The U.S. is not the only country with "states" as subnational divisions, nor the only country where subnational divisions have their own militaries. Just look at Somaliland and Puntland, with significant militaries that are greater than that of the central government. Historically, satrapies Chinese prefectures/provinces/circuits, Roman provinces, have had major militaries. Feudal lords that were not sovereign have usually held substantial militaries under the suzerainty of the respective sovereign crowns. So this seems to be a major omission, considering there is already a U.S. focused article.

-- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• State defense forces is a red link, a non-article. State defense force (no s at end) is probably the article you mean? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I inadvertently added the s -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the Caucasus campaign#Casualties is the following passage:

This gives a total of 235,733 casualties (83,083 killed, 113,570 critically wounded, 39,080 prisoners). Disease deaths (including deaths from the cold) overwhelmingly outnumbered combat deaths for Ottoman forces however, with over twice as many Ottoman troops dying of disease in the war than in combat. Assuming the same for the Caucasus, Ottoman disease deaths would number ~ 170,000, and total deaths would number ~253,000. Additionally, total woundings were x2.5 greater than critical ones overall. If this average also held true in the Caucasus, total wounded would number 284,000.^[1] Altogether, total Ottoman losses would be around 576,000 (284,000 dead, 253,000 wounded, 39,000 prisoners), over a third of total Ottoman casualties in World War I.^{[original research?]}

This has been tagged as WP:OR. Would anybody have access to this to confirm whether or not this is OR. Thank you. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cinderella157: Not precisely, no; the figures aren't exactly the same, but some are in the same ballpark. Basically, pp 237–244 are tables of figures (strength, breakdowns, casualties etc), and maybe some of the other tables hold the info. I can send it to you if you want. ——Serial Number 54129 11:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Serial Number 54129, that would be appreciated. The potential OR would be the extrapolations - ie Assuming the same for the Caucasus ... and If this average also held true in the Caucasus ... Thank you. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sent link. ——Serial Number 54129 12:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. This confirms the OR per the original tagging editor. Fixed now. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Erickson, Edward J. (2001). Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. Westport: Greenwood. ISBN 0-313-31516-7.

Currently naval militia, maritime militia and Naval Militia all point to Naval militias in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As the U.S. isn't the only place that has had this kind of militia, a general topic article needs to be built. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]