Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers

Seeking feedback re: World War II Memorial (Boston)Edit

Hello! I'm seeking feedback on the World War II Memorial along The Fens in Boston, at Talk:World War II Memorial (Boston). The original memorial, which is likely independently notable, was later expanded with neighborhood, much smaller Korean War and Vietnam War memorials. I'm curious how these should be covered; some sources describes them collectively, others separately. Any feedback welcome, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I've responded there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 13 peer reviewEdit

The Apollo 13 article is open for peer review in anticipation of the 50th anniversary, any additional eyes on it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Kees08 (Talk) 16:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but that does not actually fall under this Wiki project. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, Apollo 11 and some others do due to their cold war implications so I assumed this did as well, my mistake. Kees08 (Talk) 06:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"Fall of Tobruk" article titleEdit

I've written an article about the 1942 Axis capture of Tobruk, (see User:Alansplodge/sandbox/Second_Battle_of_Tobruk) but would like some guidance on the title before moving it into the mainspace. "Second Battle of Tobruk" seems to be the official British name but also has very little usage. "Fall of Tobruk" is much more common, the subject is already covered by a brief subsection under that name at Battle of Gazala#Fall of Tobruk, but is it maybe a bit POV? Also Tobruk had previously fallen to the Australians in January 1941, so do I need a year to disambiguate it? Comments on the draft article also welcome. Alansplodge (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

What about a descriptive title, 1942 Axis capture of Tobruk? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The OH has "Chapter XI The Battle of Gazala (Contd.): The Loss of Tobruk". DRZW (VI) has "The Taking of Tobruk" and a map heading "The Capture of Tobruk, 20–21 June 1942" Haven't got an Italian equivalent. I wouldn't put 1942 in a title because the Axis only re-captured Tobruk the once. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
So Axis capture of Tobruk then? Seems reasonable. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Me too. Keith-264 (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Now done. Thanks Peacemaker67 and Keith-264. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Implications of recent ArbCom case for content creation on WWII Polish topicsEdit

Interested editors may want to see the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland (second request, so scroll down, through the first one is of some relevance as well). To be clear, this ArbCom name is somewhat misleading, and it remedies are applicable to the entire topic area of Poland in WWII and The Holocaist. As a content creator active in this topic area who was not the party to the related ArbCom case, nor was named in any findings, I am nonetheless scared now to edit articles in said topic area. In effect, adding a single problematic source could get one banned or topic banned for an extended period of time, with no need for a prior dedicated warning (as has happened to one editor just recently). I think this is something that editors of this project should be aware of. I explicitly quote there User:Nigel Ish ‎ who recently told me "I think that the recent Arbcom ruling on articles associated with Poland in WW2 makes writing an article [related to that topic area] impossible.". I first thought he was exaggerating, but now I concur he might have been scarily correct. Even if you don't edit Polish WWII topics, it is worth nothing that if this is accepted as a norm, it can be adapted to future topic areas such as other controversial wars and so on. Is this the direction we want to go? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

G'day Piotr, I am also very concerned about the straying of ArbCom into areas regarding content and sourcing, and this is just the latest case that has done so. Guides on content and sourcing should be developed through consensus between content creators familiar with the subject area, not by a committee that does not have a very impressive collective record of content creation and no familiarity with the subject. We need more ArbCom members with real content creation chops who will reverse this trend into content and sourcing areas. ArbCom is supposed to be about conduct, not content. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The circumstances here are somewhat unique though. As long as I've been active on Wikipedia, our coverage of Poland has been frequently characterised by poor quality editing and misconduct by editors (WP:ARBEE and WP:EEML, for instance). I don't think it's unreasonable to insist on high quality sources as a means of helping to combat this. I'd be concerned if this was to be applied to areas without a 15+ year history of problems, but this seems to amount to requiring a strict interpretation of WP:RS in a topic area which needs it. Piotrus, I note that you were sanctioned in the EEML case and have been blocked for violating topics bans related to the arbitration cases in this space about 10 years ago and haven't been blocked since, so I presume that you are familiar with navigating this kind of arbitration remedy. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nick-D: I fail to see why people dredge ancient history outside of poisoning the well (you could have mentioned instead that I have written dozens of Polish WWII era FAs, GAs, and 100+ DYKs instead of bringing up my 10 year old mistake...), but no, I am not familiar with this kind of remedy. It is the first of its type and per the problems I outlined at the ArbCom page, the navigation of those problems is simple: don't edit this topic area, unless you are a sock (which doesn't care if its blocked) or an admin (who can feel safe that his admin buddies will be lenient). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't care if you were blocked 10 years ago: my point in noting it is that a) to illustrate that this has long been a troubled editing space so the history here is significant in understanding why this restriction was introduced and b) as you have since been navigating a topic area covered by strictly applied ArbCom sanctions successfully for something like a decade, the odds of you being able to comply with this restriction seem pretty high. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The rule applies if taken literally to a very large proportion of the Second World War - and imposes absurd sourcing restrictions on them - basically making Arbcom the sole arbitors on content. This project might as well be disbanded and all the articles deleted, as it is clear that the content and the contributions of ordinary editors is not wanted.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. I am editing Wikipedia since 2008, and I am always using only "high quality sources, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions". That does not prevent me from editing Wikipedia, and does not prevent me from being a productive editor in MilHist area. I would say quite opposite: these sourcing restrictions give an advantage to the users who want to create a high quality content, whereas loose sourcing requirement are beneficial mostly for various POV pushers.
I am not going to call names, but recently I decided to famliliarise myself with the old email archive of EEML members (I believe I had a right to do so, because that archive is publicly available, and I was informed that they privately discussed some actions against me). And one of emails openly says that it is hard to do anything against Paul Siebert, because he is using only high quality sources. Therefore, I see absolutely no reason to worry about these sourcing restrictions, I would say it would be better if we expanded them at a broader area.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This gives the right for anyone with an axe to grind to get others blocked or banned - and it is clear from behaviour in the World War II in Poland area and other areas covered by Arbcom restrictions that that is exactly what will happen. These restriction will be used as weapons to win content disputes without any consideration of the effects on anybody else. It is clear from the discussions on Arbcom that editors are not welcome to edit in these fields.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, I respectfully disagree. You must agree that in this area of conflict, the main dispute is between "Polonicentric" and "Jewdocentric" editors (I use these conditional names just for clarity), and the main problem is that they are pushing some views that are not shared by majority of scholarly community. Obviously, the party that is using poorer sources is more likely to be engaged in POV-pushing, and it would be reasonable to deprive it from the major weapon - their sources. In reality, many good Polish author write quite mainstream books and articles, and these authors publish their works in reputable publisher houses and/or international peer-reviewed journals. That means good quality Polish sources are not suppressed by these sanctions. Only bad sources become banned (in the last case, that was some obscure web site). To win a content dispute with a POV-pusher is hardly a bad goal. In all other cases, all parties are in an equal position.
And, again, noone who has "an axe to grind" can get me blocked or banned when I am using good sources. Moreover, a first violation will most likely result just in a warning, so I see absolutely no problem here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
A first violation has already resulted in an editor being blocked. The scope of this restriction does not just cover the dispute on the killing of Jews in Poland however (as you crudely refer to) - it can be applied to articles as tangentially related as SMS M85 - (the ship was sunk by a Polish mine at the end of the German invasion of Poland) - and can be used to prevent the use of standard sources such as Conway's and Jane's (or even non-English language sources) - because they aren't academic journals or published by University presses. This sort of threat means that editors will just stay away - I certainly won't touch M85 again. But perhaps that is what the chief antagonists in these disputes, and those who produced the sanctions wanted.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I already responded at the AE page, but let me point out that this concrete editor was quite aware of restrictions (I am not commenting at AE, because I don't want to make additional harm). The topic we are talking about is totally different from majority of topics that are within the scope of MilHist. Noone is going to report an editor for writing about some ship (no matter which sources they are going to use). I agree that for low importance articles it may be quite ok to use less reliable sources (if good ones are not available), but for history topics it is hardly acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I find this extremely concerning, much for the same reasons Nigel Ish has already gone into. In the decade I've edited articles, including some which are or shall become historical in nature, being able to invoke newspapers as a primary source has been invaluable for sourcing facts and moods at that time. Their perspective can be unique and perhaps capture the mood of the time better than that of commentary that has been produced long afterwards by a professional. To lose the ability to look at non-academic sources that meet WP:RS (e.g. newspapers) would be an extreme shame. I understand that this specific article's political sensitivities make it a special case, but what's stopping the ruling being applied wider? Kyteto (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kyteto: see my responce to Piotrus below. I got a better idea about possible modification of the "Sourcing expectations" clause. Indeed, many sources that do not fit current criteria can and should be used if they provide some non-controversial information and contain no extraordinary claim. To determine if they meet this criterion is quite simple: if nobody objects to their usage, and our WP:V allows their usage, they can be used. However, if someone contests the usage of such a source, it should be removed and never restored, unless a broad consensus will be achieved about their restoration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert: I hope you forgive me for looking at your recent edits but I just wanted to use a particular example if I could find one in your edit history, and here you go: in this edit few months back you restore some sources that may violate the discussed remedy. This and [1] are newspaper articles, and please note that according to the editor who made the AE report that led to the ARCA thread, newspapers are not acceptable (although the reviewing admin disagreed for that source). I've asked an arbitrator to clarify their stance on newspapers. Other than that, yes, you don't have much to worry, through this is, with all due respect, because you don't actually add much new content (a paragraph or so every few months; most of your edits from last year seem fall under minor changes/copyediting). It is easy for you to say that don't use bad sources, but an active content creator who creates a new article every week or so, and adds dozens of sources every week is much more likely to slip sooner or later, by adding a book that was self-published, or another borderline source. And then he can be reported by a sock of indef banned editor with a grudge to AE and get a week+ block. Yes, you are unlikely to be affected by this, soon the area will have no-one willing to create new articles, just socks edit warring with semi-active, good intentioned editors like yourself. PS. Also, please consider the second source that was brought to AE (and that one was declared to violate the spirit of the rules; I agree that the third source brought, "pw25", is unacceptable, but let's talk about the second because I think it should be allowed, or at least it should not be sufficient for an insta-block): lecture notes by historian Anna M. Cienciala available at [2]. The author is a respected academic. The notes are effectively self-published, but are cited by many other scholars ([3]) and even positively reviewed "I was pleased that she mentioned Sarmatian Review in her excellent compendium of works on the history of Poland and Eastern Europe available online (http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/bibpt1rev.htm)." While I would say that such a source should not be used for WP:REDFLAGS, I think it is entirely acceptable in regular circumstances, and at the very least, an editor using them should not be blocked for that. Yet the recent AE ruling suggests that yes, if you use a source of similar quality, you can get a block for 'up to a month on first offense, no warning needed'. Still, nothing to worry about here, overdue cleanup of a problematic content area? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Piotrus: You should not apologise for putting forward rational arguments.
Regarding that your example, I did not participate in the Holocaust in Poland case as extensively as Molobo did, and there is no reason to conclude that I read a final decision, including the "sourcing expectations" claim. Actually, I have learned about sourcing expectation just recently. Moreover, I believed WP:V was applicable to that case, and currently it says that "mainstream newspapers" are good RS. However, as a recent discussion at the WP:V page demonstrated, the clause that "mainstream newspapers" are RS is vague, and it contradicts to what NEWSORG say (according to guidelines, editorials and op-ed materials are primary sources), and the word "mainstream" refers to a very narrow category of newspapers. Therefore, retrospectively, these my edits were probably incorrect, but I would prefer to wait with the final decision until the new version of WP:V will be approved. In addition, whereas the sources re-added by me could be, probably, questionable, they still are better that majority of other sources, so if we universally apply this approach, the only source that should stay is Himka, and the article should be deleted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding those sources, I don't have a strong opinion, but my concern here is that someone who has a grudge against you (including an indef banned editor operating via socks) could report you to AE, and then you are faced with the usual admin lottery: who will review your case? Do they think you are a trouble maker who needs to be taught a lesson? Are they having a bad day? That admin is empowered to ignore all other policies and make a call whether a source is sufficiently reliable or not and chose to block you if they feel like it. No prior discussion of a particular source reliability is needed. Even if you think that most of the time your judgement in what makes a reliable source is good, think about the added element of stress this can introduce to good faithed editors here. It's like saying 'this is now a minefield. Sorry, but it is necessary to make the bad guys go away. Try not to step on any mines. Enjoy'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think a lottery is something I should be afraid of. Molobo is a very specific case, because he was deeply involved in the Arb case. With regard to all other users (except, maybe, you and VM) admins would agree that a warning would be sufficient. Indeed, I myself learned about these sourcing expectations just by accident, so it would be ridiculous to expect other editors to be more familiar with that than I am.
Moreover, I am confident that if some admin attempted to block me for sources I am using, I will be capable to prove that admin is wrong and incompetent, and will request to limit their activity at AE per WP:CIR. However, that is possible because, as you perfectly know, I am using only good quality RS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, Piotrus, I got a much better idea about modification of the "sourcing expectations" clause. Its current version is not optimal, and it does not take into account real situation. Majority of edit wars occur when you guys are trying to add some Polish source other editors disagree with, but many Polish sources cause no objections. I propose two criteria for source selection, and they are partially based on the article that you cite in one or your own article written for WMF (the author writes about Wikipedia conflicts over Vietnam war, 2013). In this article, the author analyzes the dispute between me, TTAAC, and several other users, and he notes that my procedure of reliable source identification was good. Accordingly, I propose two criteria for source selection:
  1. If the source can be found using a non-contradictory search procedure using google Scholar, jstor, or similar search engine, AND it was cited by other scholarly/scientific works, the source is good.
  2. Other sources that meet WP:V criteria are also acceptable, unless they have not been contested, or their inclusion is supported by consensus.
If this version of "sourcing expectations" were adopted, Molobo could not have been sanctioned. What FR was supposed to to is just to remove the questionable source, and the attempt of Molobo to re-add it would cause sanctions. However, until the addition of some source has not been contested, nobody can be sanctioned. With regard to the criterion #1, just check the sources you yourself use: if you can find them using scholar, and they are cited by other works, that means these restrictions will not affect you at all. I can say for myself that lion's share of sources I use are obtained using that procedure.
I am seriously thinking to request ArbCom to add such a clause to ARBEE as whole (and to remove "sourcing expectations" clause from the Holocaust in Poland case, and I sincerely believe that will lead to a serious decreas of probability of edit wars.
What do you think about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Setting aside the fact that Molobo did restore one obvious bad source (but I think such an infraction merits a warning not a block), yes, I agree. Nobody should be sanctioned for adding a source that has not been previously discussed. Hence my proposal to create a blacklist of sources that editors in this area should monitor after a warning. Anyone adding a bad source gets a warning, and if the restore it again, then we can talk about bans or such. But nukes should fly after a clear warning, not before. I hope you'll propose the above at ARBCA. We need more constructive proposals how to deal with this quagmire. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think a blacklist is a good idea, but you have identified the essence of a conflict very well: it is actually about usage of a very narrow set of sources, whereas other sources cause no conflicts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
We have a perfectly serviceable reliable sources policy, which should be used properly, including taking sources to RSN and starting a RfC if a consensus isn't achieved either on the talk page or at RSN. If an editor wants to use a source but cannot get a positive consensus regarding its reliability, it cannot be used. That is how our policy works. This ArbCom remedy is massive overreach. ArbCom has no business sticking its nose into content or sourcing areas. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Interested editors may want to note that an arbitrator replied to my small clarification request at User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#Minor_clarification and noted that he thinks newspapers are not acceptable (which is at odds with the admin who ruled at AE that they are). Joy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: You are right. The problem is that the admins who are active at AE have a tendency to think violations of WP:V or WP:NPOV are beyond the scope of DS. Normally, their answer is "that is a content dispute". In reality, if violations of content policies in the areas covered by DS were sanctionable per DS (and they are supposed to, to the best of my knowledge), no additional source restrictions would be necessary.
@Piotrus: Newspapers are mostly primary sources, per NEWSORG, and many of them are not reliable, so Worm is right.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
@Paul Siebert: Do me a favor and look at Michler Palace or Defense of Katowice: are any newspapers there used in a way that violates PRIMARY, REDFLAG or are plain unreliable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

French schooner TurquoiseEdit

What is the identity of the French schooner Turquoise, which rescued the crew of Shah Jahan in the Indian Ocean in August 1859. Reported by the Daily News of 15 September 1858 as "H.I.F.M. schooner Turquoise". I'm taking H.I.F.M. to mean "His Imperial French Majesty". There was an Iris-class schooner of that name, but she was struck in 1831. I've added entries for the two at French ship Turquoise, but the second needs identifying and linking. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

According to French Warships in the Age of Sail 1786 - 1861 it was a 4-gun schooner built at Lorient in 1840. Hulked in 1864 - Dumelow (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks, Dumelow. Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Michelin GuideEdit

I am surprised to see that this project has an interest in the Michelin Guide. ([4]). Is this correct? The Banner talk 11:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There is discussion of this over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests - Dumelow (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

What isEdit

{{hsp}}? I've tried to find it but no luck. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a redirect for {{Hair space}}. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I saw some in Second Battle of Ypres and couldn't work out what they were for. Keith-264 (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Canary Girls to MunitionetteEdit

Hello. I’ve suggested that the article Canary Girls be merged to Munitionette. If you have thoughts on this proposed merge, please comment on the Merger discussion. This is my first proper merge request so any help or advice is welcome. Thank you! Zeromonk (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested moveEdit

A proposal to move Yom Kippur War to 1973 Arab–Israeli War is being discussed here. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this subject within the project's scope?Edit

I am unsure whether John D. Whitney should be tagged with the military wikiproject templates. He served in the U.S. Navy and had an interesting (DYK-worthy) experience that shaped the rest of his life. However, his service in the Navy was otherwise unremarkable. Ergo Sum 02:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Gordon Infantry BrigadeEdit

Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 12#The Gordon Infantry Brigade would be appreciated. It looks like there are at least two units this could've referred to, though there's only one isolated use of the phrase in the encyclopedia right now. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

CFB ShiloEdit

CFB Shilo was a heliport but they have both closed down. I take it the base is still in operation. It needs the infobox updated/replaced. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

fyi: she for shipsEdit

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § "She" vs. "it" for ships

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Military history".