Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 44

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 39
• 40
• 41
• 42
• 43
• Archive 44
• 45
• 46
• 47
• 48
• 49
• 50
• 60

MILHIST pages

I've been considering the way we approach things (I say "we", I'm not a coordinator as you will know) and I've specifically been thinking about a few things which I've numbered because they're quite separate:

1. Our main discussion page is the most active page. Accepting this, it's a bit odd that it doesn't feature on the main roster on non-talk pages (Tab header) – you're expected to go to "main page" and then discussion. Threads vary wildly and therefore one option is to say that this discussion page is different to say, the one we are on now and should be promoted. A complementary option would be to make the main discussion page a "noticeboard" (although I dislike the term), that is to say, have it in the Wikipedia namespace and not Wikipedia_talk.
2. Secondly, if we accept that the tab design picks out only some of our pages, then it makes sense to consider carefully what these are. I've had a look at the figures and the Showcase is probably the weakest of our current tabs. We can expect maybe 10 to 12 people to visit it today. Whilst keeping a record of our successful points is useful, that could probably happen just as well behind the scenes. The low number of people suggests that few non-regulars look at it for inspiration, say. The other potential would be some sort of editor pride, but we have a successful awards system for that and I think few editors care particularly about seeing the article they've worked on in the showcase.
3. Thirdly I like the tab system but we chop and change between that and the right-aligned navbox. As in point 1, if you are on the main discussion page the tab system isn't available. This can I feel make the MILHIST setup feel more disjoint and less like a confined system. Those which are on the tab system also display the right navbox, so I think we should consider adding the tab system to at least the main discussion page and possibly other pages. This is obviously a little dependent on point 1.

I know that following Wikimania there was some general discussion or changes in the works but I don't know enough to know how these would affect the above. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Grandiose, no worries about not being a coordinator, but I'm thinking you should be one. ;-) The discussion from Wikimania is here. I don't think it conflicts with most of your ideas. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more:

The exact number and placement of individual links is obviously dependent on the overall layout of the page; when we switch over to something like the streamlined project structure/layout proposed in Erik's Wikimania presentation, a lot of these issues will resolve themselves. Assuming that we're still planning on moving forward with that, I wouldn't necessarily spend too much time on the current link structure.

As far as the showcase is concerned, Grandiose makes some good points regarding the lack of visitors there. I recall that Dank at one point suggested that the concept of a manually-maintained showcase had been superseded by the improvements to the assessment category structure (and particularly the ability to generate per-category statistics from it), and that we could deprecate it; I wonder if this might not be a good time to implement that idea? Kirill ^[talk] 22:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You guys make a good case. - Dank (push to talk) 23:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So, any other thoughts? Does anyone find the manually-maintained showcase listing to be more useful than the automatic category-based one? Or should we go ahead and get rid of the former? Kirill ^[talk] 00:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to shifting to a category-based showcase, is there some way to set things up so that the links are to the articles rather than the talk pages? If this is possible, it would be a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking at that issue (in the context of automatically generating task lists), and it doesn't seem like there's any way to do that. Having said that, I don't think that would be a big deal for people; I expect that anyone browsing through such articles would understand the relationship between the talk page and the article. For statistics purposes, the distinction is irrelevant; we get the same counts either way. Kirill ^[talk] 11:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I quite like the showcase for A-class articles, since an A-class rating is based on an internal review. For featured content, it's a bit of a redundant duplication, really, and I wouldn't lose sleep over replacing it with a category-based system. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how beneficial a partial deprecation (e.g. featured but not A-Class) would be in practice; we'd still need to have a showcase page separate from the category system, and would still need to manually update the showcase on both promotions to A-Class and promotions from A-Class, so the amount of work involved in maintaining it would remain more or less the same.

More generally, I tend to think that the summaries of promotions in the Bugle are probably sufficient in terms of letting people know about such articles. Given the low visitor numbers pointed to by Grandiose—a large part of which is likely driven by our updates to the showcase pages rather than genuine visitors—I suspect that almost nobody actually uses the showcase listing to simply browse through articles. If we're interested in highlighting them more, some form of rotating listing driven by the category would probably be both more useful and easier to maintain than the full manual one. Kirill ^[talk] 13:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

(I should point out here, incidentally, that the showcase listings seem to be out-of-date more often than not these days, so the issue of maintenance effort is not just a theoretical one. For whatever reason, it doesn't seem like we have the necessary manpower [or interest] to maintain the listings by hand.) Kirill ^[talk] 13:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think because we have a detailed checklist for ACR closure, updates to the A-Class showcase tend to happen as they should. Successful FACs are sometimes removed from the MilHist open tasks template without being added to the showcase or the Bugle articles page, but I've generally been taking care of those when finalising the articles page for each Bugle. That said, I'm not too fussed if we drop the showcase and therefore this step from the FAC and ACR closure processes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

When I add or subtract FACs to the open tasks template, I put the name of the article in the edit summary ... in part so that people who are watchlisting don't have to pull up the page to see what's going on, but also so that at the end of the month, all I need to look at is the history to update the FAs on the Bugle page ... except I always forget to do that :) I'll try to do better. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we're really consistent with updating even the A-Class showcase, particularly in terms of removing articles. For example, we currently list 350 articles in the showcase—but Category:A-Class military history articles only contains 347 entries! The likely explanation is that we neglected to update the showcase when some A-Class articles were promoted to FA, but it's becoming increasingly time-consuming to try and hunt down such mistakes by hand, particularly if they're not caught immediately (which tends to be the case now that the 1.0 assessment bot is no longer updating its logs daily).

One compromise solution might be to switch to using the same automatic listing bot that we currently use to generate the FA/GA/etc. tables on task force pages. We've shied away from doing this before because the bot runs rather infrequently, so the listing is usually out-of-date; but if that's going to be the case regardless, then we might as well have a bot do the updates rather than continuing to do them by hand. Kirill ^[talk] 00:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So, to summarize, I think we have three options on the table:

1. Remove the showcase pages, and use the categories exclusively.
2. Change the showcase pages to be automatically generated by a bot.
3. Continue updating the showcase pages by hand.

Which one does everyone prefer? Kirill ^[talk] 13:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not by hand. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? Kirill ^[talk] 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well for me it is either reform the way the way the showcase is used - i.e. get more readers for it or uses for it - or remove. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Automating the showcase

Having spent some time looking at how we can automate the updating of the showcase, I've come to the conclusion the bot used to generate the task force recognized content listings isn't really a good fit; it was designed around the idea of creating a complex listing on a single page, and won't work well with a subpage structure.

I've also asked on the bot requests page whether there are any other bots that can generate a similar listing, and Legoktm has expressed interest in doing so. Assuming that his bot can handle our subpage/category structure—I'm currently waiting on a response to a more detailed description of what we need—we should be able to completely automate updates to the FA, FL, A, AL, and GA listings. This would remove virtually all of the day-to-day work involved with the showcase, since the other sections are rarely (if ever) updated.

In theory, we could automate some of the other sections as well; however, to do so, we would need to start tracking them in our assessment statistics. At the moment, we do not flag featured pictures, sounds, or portals as being any different than non-featured ones; they are automatically assigned to the File or Portal classes based on namespace. We could, if we wished to, create separate classes for the featured versions and allow these items to be assessed appropriately; is there any interest in doing so? Kirill ^[talk] 03:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To give everyone an update on where we stand:

• Legoktm has added a feature to his bot to automatically update the FA/FL/A/AL/GA showcase pages; you may have seen some preliminary tests a few weeks ago. Once he returns from his vacation, he'll set up the bot to run this task periodically, removing the need for further manual updates to those pages.
• I've done some initial prototyping, and it shouldn't be difficult to set up tracking for featured pictures and portals; we simply need to make a decision as to whether we want to track these automatically or not.
• The featured sounds process appears to have collapsed, so there are no further updates coming to that page. Given the situation, I'm not entirely sure whether it makes sense to retain the existing listing either; any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

As always, and comments or suggestions are very welcome! Kirill ^[talk] 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A Milhist "drive" proposal

The second proposal I have, is: explore standing up a Milhist drive of some sort over the next uni break (whenever that may be): the shape that this drive could take could be anything, as I think the important thing here is to start getting members engaged again. Please add comments below about this. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A drive would definitely be worthwhile. In terms of the purpose of the drive, I would suggest a departure from previous drives—which focused on purely administrative tasks like tagging and assessment—in favor of something that actually improves articles (e.g. filling in missing citations, addressing cleanup tags, etc.). Ideally, we could have an effort that would either move a lot of Start-Class articles to C/B-Class or a lot of stubs to Start-Class, but I'm not sure how to frame that in terms of specific goals. Kirill ^[talk] 13:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing with tagging (etc.) is that people can take time out of whatever they normally do to do the drive. However I'd be hard pushed to take time out of article writing to do article writing somewhere else. Wikify (etc.) tags might work better. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point and certainly one that we need to consider as we want as many people to take part as possible. I suppose that the shape of the drive, comes down to its purpose. If the purpose is just get people involved, a tag and assess drive would have the benefit of being relatively easy for people to contribute to and it also has the bonus of identifying new members: if a member tags an article, they could check who the main contributor is. If they are currently active and their interests seem to align with the project, then they could be invited to join the project. I believe that Anotherclown and a few other editors might already be doing this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there any further ideas on this? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What about "Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists" for a drive? In your collective experience, is attacking that category likely to result in a significant number of articles being upgraded, or will they mostly just be confirmed as Stub/Start? It is something that people can contribute to when they have a spare half hour. The other thing is that I have been doing a fair amount of task force allocation and assessment of new articles, and haven't been checking to see if the principal contributors are non-MILHIST editors. Bugger. I probably should do that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Generally they seem to be start/C, in my experience, but there will be a few Bs in there and, of course, stubs. Re your second point, yes that would be a good way of inviting new members to the project. BTW, I appreciate the work you've been doing with assessment and t/f allocation. Does anyone else support this idea (incomplete B class checklists) as the basis for a drive, or are there any other ideas that could be considered? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

While I like the idea of an article improvement drive, the most commonly proposed drives are to fill in the B class assessments. Given that drives are (obviously enough) dependent on editors interest in taking part, that probably makes the B class drive the better option. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough to me. We should probably decide on an approach for B6 (per our other discussion below) before launching the drive, however, since that will impact the checklists. Kirill ^[talk] 13:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd support such a drive, per my comment here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Anything happening with this? I'd be happy to participate (see also this discussion). Inkbug (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I was planning to wait until after the New Year to make a proposal. The incomplete B class checklist seems like it would be a relatively simple thing for people to get involved with, so it would probably be a go-er. If we were to use this as the basis of a drive, a few questions come to mind. Would we be looking to provide incentives? If so, what would they be? How would they be tracked/recorded? Would there need to be a quality control system? I guess at this early stage I should lay my cards on the table, I am a little concerned that sometimes drives get bigger than they need be (admin/co-ord wise) so I would like to try to find a way to run one with minimal co-ord overheads if possible. I know this sounds a little negative, but from my own perspective late Jan to early Apr will be a write off for me from a Wiki perspective as I have to go away for work. Any ideas in this regard? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

B-Class expansion

• The B-Class checklist should be expanded to utilise B6 criteria, relating to non-use of technical language, to help raise quality standards close to GA/FA criteria from an earlier stage, reduce the need for as much copy-editing and rewriting of articles at later stages due to this oversight.
• To save repopulating the B-class criteria checklog backlog, if B6 were applied, anything graded as passing B1–5 grades as and meeting the extra B6 criteria met is – two subtly different classes, but with B+ that one step closer to promote more A/GA/FA standards, possibly leading to ACRs being easier to handle, where B-class criteria has been encouraged early in article development and additional quality steps promoted.

I like the idea of adding B6—if only for consistency with the broader assessment scale—but I'm not particularly keen on the idea of adding yet another assessment class, particularly given the subtlety of the distinction between it and B-Class. Instead, I'd suggest that we auto-generate a backlog for the new criterion (e.g. "B-Class articles needing to be checked for accessibility"), but leave the articles themselves assessed at B-Class even if B6 has not been set in the assessment template. Kirill ^[talk] 03:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've done something like 70 good article reviews, at least a dozen for this project, and in my experience technical language hasn't been a particular problem. I raise a wide range of concerns at GAN, not sure this is the way forward. I have some support for Kirill's assessment idea, though, although it would at the moment be a humongous backlog it wouldn't be actively harmful and we might get round to it one day. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The "B+" idea was more an after-thought I had. Probably true that it may be too much just for B6. I think, given that Milhist includes articles about weapons, tanks, military equipment in general, the need to be watchful of technical language is important, and the criteria does stress the need to target a broad audience. There's a big difference between school kids looking things up on Wiki and Uni students taking a look. A separate backlog sounds okay, sort of what I had in mind by using B+ instead, to filter all the fully B1–5 assessed articles from all B-class articles, should B6 be included, no need to restart the entire backlog.. not sure Adamdaley would appreciate that, given the effort he put into that backlog this year. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I think that this is a good idea and I'd this if it were implemented in the manner that Kirill has suggested. It would be good for us to keep our B class consistent with the wider assessment scale, but I wouldn't want to create an extra assessment class as such. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we use a bot a tag all B class articles as B6=yes unless the article is specifically tagged as being too technical. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very strongly opposed to the B6 criterion, which runs contrary to the nature of MILHIST, which is a highly technical subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I can think of a lot more complex topics.. astronomy, medicine, physics, mathematics, engineering, etc. I think history should be accessible to everyone, and everyone should have a right to be given a chance to understand it, not just "specialists" because I don't consider it a specialist subject, entirely, especially not on Wiki where this project covers "everything". A few things might be technical, such as weapons and vehicles, but the bulk of articles describing history itself, battles, etc are not and should not be written in a highly technical manner. The nature of MILHIST is not what matters. We're a part of Wiki, the parent project, and that's what matters: to fit in not set aside. The B6 criteria makes sense, and we should not be ignoring it. To do so would make us pretentious, as though we're of some "better" class who only write for educated readers. Hardly a warm welcome for younger readers, or those less familiar with historical terms needing clearer explanations. Sure, this isn't Simple Wiki, but it's not Mastermind Wiki either. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am a specialist, I do consider it a specialist subject, I know how complex it is, and I know how great and problematic the misunderstandings are that arise from non-technical writings on "battles etc". MILHIST has a good reputation in academic circles precisely because we do not engage in reductivist writing. If B6 were adopted, I would no longer feel able to contribute. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you might consider yourself a "specialist", whatever that amounts to in today's society.. but either way you look at it, B6 is about making sure articles meet the Wikipedia:TECHNICAL guidelines. Mostly, it refers to not using overly complex language, and if that can't be avoided, make sure to use clear descriptions/glossaries/translations, etc to allow readers to understand the language. I don't see the point in your claiming to be a "specialist" and also against B6. In short, in means you will end up writing complex material which will just go unread by a lot of readers. I don't see why anyone would want to waste their time writing articles for the few, rather than for the many, i.e. everyone. That is the overall philosophy Wiki stands for: making material accessible to everyone. As such, we have to work with that status quo, not against it. I disagree that military history is that highly technical.. it's a subject that has various levels of understanding, and can be as easy or as complex as you make it, depending on the depth of your interest. B6 is already a part of Wiki, any editor has the right to tag something as being too technical, or rewrite anything to make it less technical, so if we don't adopt it, we're only pretending that it doesn't exist rather than having the sense and maturity to cater for a wide audience ourselves. Anyone can read a book on almost any military subject these days, so military history is no longer limited to upper-class students, as it once was. As a result of the eradication of stuck-up gits, we can fortunately appeal to everyone with a passing interest. Unlike extremely technical subjects such as the sciences, studying history appeals to more people as a hobby, and during their years as a student, because few make a real career of it thereafter. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

May I congratulate you on the success of your country's program to eradicate stuck-up gits. Had I known, I would have congratulated the Earl of Wessex in person while I was there. I do not claim that my articles go unread by a lot of readers. (That's Ian Rose's job.) I do occasionally tackle articles like Douglas MacArthur (85,000 views in the last 30 days) and Manhattan Project (143,000). Perhaps we should, as a task force project, overhaul the occasional vital article. I can write articles about the sciences, and I don't regard them as any less technical than Military History articles; it is just that Military History is where my field of expertise lies. It is true that military historians tend to write books, which possibly makes military history more accessible than the sciences, but against that the readers are all supposed to have studied them at school, whereas military history is not on the syllabus. I have no objection if Wikipedia:TECHNICAL is considered the same way that the scientific projects do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This really isn't that big of a deal, Marcus or Hawkeye, so can we keep the vitriol out of this? Having said that, I'm not convinced this is a necessary or helpful change. We may be able to include it in B2 if you all think it's really necessary. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of counting it as something else, when it has its own criteria.. B2 refers to coverage and accuracy, not accessibility. The two should be kept separate, as WP1.0 rightly does.. by maintaining a separate B6 "fails" list, we then know which articles require further work, specifically related to editing to reach a bigger audience rather than improving content. MilHist claims to set the standards and be the best project.. I wholly disagree, by ignoring such standards we're falling into the pit of ignorance, and isolating ourselves from what the wider community wants that we're a part of, and a filibuster of old-school coords want (and whom I feel will drag this project into the pit). I find Hawkeye's remark "If B6 were adopted, I would no longer feel able to contribute" totally unacceptable. It implies that he only cares for the needs of his own editing methods rather than the needs of the many being able to understand the content of articles, and his implied "threat" aims to undermine this discussion, because we all know that people are less likely to support even the most reasonable standards if it risks loosing editors. The view count of articles matter little, popularity of a subject does not equate to readers understanding the material: try reviewing the feedback and concerns from readers once in a while. I think people who dispute the importance of B6 are intolerant or prejudiced against people with learning or reading difficulties. And I think that any project that does not adopt B6 should be condemned for failing to provide comfortable reading for everyone. Any article should be understandable, in terms of readability, to students of all ages, non-students, people young and old. A reader might not understand the content of a highly technical subject, such as nuclear bomb development, but the sole purpose of B6 is to make the readability broad enough to at least give them a chance to try to grasp it. As for the Earl of Wessex, he's Royalty.. they're a bunch of stuck-up arseholes in their own tax-funded class; I'm talking about upper-class gits who write content aimed at Oxford and Cambridge schoolboys, masters, professors, and other such capitalist plebs who isolate themselves from and disregard wider society's greater needs for their own selfish ends. Wiki isn't supposed to be aimed at top-grade University students, not that many establishments even accept Wiki as a reliable source and warn students to not cite it. "Military history" may not be on most countries syllabus per se, but history usually is, and a lot of it is military.. almost all countries teach a mixture of national and local history, and the biggest national events recently include WWI and WWII, and the Cold War. Americans learn about American Civil War, Vietnam, Independence. Europe has a vast array of history extending back to Middle Ages or BCE civilisations. Almost all these are under our scope, because there is no regular history task force any more. Therefore, it is up to us to make sure all articles, not "the occasional vital article" (bearing in mind we don't rate importance so that is a subjective method), can be accessed by everyone per B6. Perhaps when that happens, public opinion of Wiki might become more positive. I for one am sick of the outsider remarks that Wiki is a closed-community that care more about itself and bickering than focusing on reaching an audience. And the reason I'm sick, is because I agree with many of their sentiments and can see the lackluster Wiki is becoming.. a shining example of a failing dream, solely because editors care more about themselves than each other, and unannounced readers even less. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving on, it seems that there is some support for implementing B6 by having a bot auto assess anything without a "too technical" tag. Is this a correct summary? Would anyone object if we did this? It would have the benefit of bringing the project into line with the rest of Wiki. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the {{technical}} tag is fairly underused, only about 1,300 articles are tagged – though I doubt that reflects the reality of how many complex articles exist of >4m – then using a bot to auto-rate our thousands of articles as meeting B6 criteria would not represent the nature of B-class criteria, and would be biased in favour of the project "looking good", or would be cutting corners, which is unnecessary given that there are no deadlines and backlogs will happen. I think it would be okay only to auto-assess anything currently of B-Class (i.e. meeting all B1–5 requirements) and upto, say. 1,000 words prose (I'm sure a bot can determine the prose size readily) as short articles are usually succinct or unlikely to contain enough content to become overly technical. Anything exceeding 1,000 words should have B6 left unrated for human-eyes to determine only. All Stub/Start/C-class articles containing B-class assessments but not meeting all B1–5 criteria should also be left unrated, as clearly they need work and eventual reassessment anyway.. to mark them all as meeting B6 would be unhelpful and somewhat dishonest. As Kirill said, a separate category listing articles that have not been assessed for B6 should be created, rather than re-expanding the current incomplete B-class checklist category to include B6. However, this new category could be considered low-priority. As editors work through the incomplete B-class assessments, and aim to include the B6 check, both categories would be reduced. It is impossible for a bot to know if an article is technical or not, only a person can determine that, so I can't stress enough how much I would oppose a bot auto-assessing "all" B-rated articles, it would be poor practice. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to include B6, since an article simply must be accessible, not only in terms of technical terms and jargon, but, in my view, also in introducing the necessary context or at least giving some short explanations on the terms used and political/religious/military/cultural issues mentioned rather than simply providing a link to the relevant article. Writing in some of the more obscure areas (at least to US/W. European readers), I am often reminded of this need in article reviews. It is sufficiently different from B2 and B4 criteria to warrant a separate mention, although, as said, I would not limit it to "technical language" alone but interpret it more broadly. Constantine ✍ 09:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to Marcus and Constantine: thanks for sharing your concerns, you both raise some valid points. Does anyone see any issues with implementing it in this form? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with adding B6, but in a way that ensures that articles currently rated as B aren't automatically downgraded when this field is added to the template. I'm not really on top of the technical possibilities, but like the idea of automatically setting the tag at Y for all articles that a) aren't tagged a having technical language problems and b) aren't tagged as having problems with wording more generally (for instance, those tagged with any of the cleanup templates). I don't think that they'd be any enthusiasm for a drive to set this tag for large numbers of articles, especially as most should be OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if/when we implement this, we should notify WP:AIR to see if they want to add the field at the same time. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Where do we stand on this issue? I think there is consensus to implement it, so how do we go about it? Constantine ✍ 10:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of absence

Hi all, I'm going to be travelling for work from Sunday to Friday afternoon, Australian east coast time. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I too will be absent travelling for over a week from Saturday. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm out of town too, beginning Dec 12 and lasting until Dec 21 (give or take). I'm taking the laptop with me, but my contributions here will depend on whether or not I get wireless at whatever place they are putting us up. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugle change

Guys, Ed made several suggestions for revamping the monthly Bugle in his October op-ed. One area that Nick and I thought we'd attack first, starting with the January 2013 edition, is the Article News section, which for some time has been made up of blurbs that have been increasing in average length as time goes on. While we hope to do something more interesting with the page than simply go back to the old style of listing just the article title and its nominator(s), we do ask that from this point on, coords promoting A-Class articles or adding Featured Content to the Article News page simply include the title and the nominator, and don't bother with any blurb -- Nick and I will take care of the rest. Assuming they'll be no argument with this (as it will mean less work for closing coords!) I'm planning to tweak the ACR closure instructions accordingly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ack. Anotherclown (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No argument here. Perhaps it might be nice to invite the authors to say something about their newly promoted articles, such as where their inspiration came from or why they find the subject so interesting? A general roundup of happenings at ACR and the various featured conten processes might also make an interesting addition to the Bugle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If you go the 'general roundup' route, you may be interested in collaborating with Crisco of the Signpost's featured content section. We collaborate with the Wikimedia Research Newsletter for the Recent Research section, and I see no reason why we couldn't do something similar here... :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, since it's Christmas time we were going make it a surprise (!) but Harry has in fact divined the sort of thing we've been considering, i.e. a brief word from the nominators on the articles in question where possible, either by invite or simply derived from the nomination statement, as I recalled seeing in the Signpost once. The general round-up idea might be worthwhile too, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

MHOTY Reminder

I thought it would be polite to remind everyone about the "Military Historian of the Year" award! I haven't seen anywhere to vote for it yet. —Ed!^(talk) 15:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. We should probably get on this. For dates: should we have nominations start on the 14th? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

14 December seems fine to me. What needs to be done? I'm happy to help, but unfortunately I will be heading out of town again from 15 Dec and won't have internet access again until 21 Dec. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We can probably cut and paste from last year. Can anyone get this ready? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I've written something up in my sandbox, which can be copied across on 14 Dec. Please feel free to tweak as necessary. The link is here: User:AustralianRupert/Sandbox. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That looks good, and thanks for starting this. From memory, there was a strong view at the end of the process last year that editors should be asked to only provide three or so votes (which virtually everyone who voted had done without being asked), and that might be good to write into the voting process. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I've posted this now; I added a brief comment about voting in line with the above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys bringing this here to keep the present nominations discussion on focus. While I readily endorse all the nominations, I think we are missing a trick. They are all old (in the nicest possible way) experienced editors. How about some recognition for the newcomer of the year, maybe decided by yourselves or ask for nominations. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a fantastic idea. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I was going to nominate a sixth person who would be my "newcomer of the year" suggestion but I wanted to check just how new he was before I did that (perhaps I'd just been ignorant of his contributions before). I have no prob with a separate newcomer award, shall we define how one qualifies for this or just throw out a few names with justifications that can be critiqued by others? Happy to do the latter... On a practical note, any ideas for the prize? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Establishing specific eligibility criteria would be tricky (eg, if we limited it to people who've registered in the last 12 months we'd cut out longer-established editors who've recently started working on military history topics). I'd suggest that we either ask members of the project to nominate any editors they consider 'new' or pick some nominees ourselves. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We could go with registered in the last two years and/or joined the project this year, interpreted loosely? This is a fantastic idea, by the way. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a fantastic idea. I'd say we just let people nominate editors they think of as "new"—it's always possible that somebody who has been around for a while, and has been a member of the project for a while, could have only taken an active role in the project or the topic area in the last year or so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty well how I saw it. Okay, I think we're generally agreed on that, what's the preference in terms of nominations/voting -- by all members or by the coords alone? If we're suggesting this as an extension of the MHOTY then my feeling is it should be nominated/voted by all members, same rules as MHOTY. If we want to restrict noms/voting to the coords alone, then perhaps it should be a distinct "Coordinators' MilHist Newcomer of the Year" award or some such. Not that fussed either way, let's just get down to cases as I'm sure we're all keen to nominate some people... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD and create the award. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yesss, fair enough, I guess I saw this as a single gong rather than a 1-2-3 thing like the regular MHOTY, at least till we see how many valid nominations we get, and remembering that everyone nominated gets at least the WikiProject Barnstar, which might be worth more to a newcomer than to us crusty old hands... ;-) What's everyone else think? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added the first nomination, User:Peacemaker67. As I note there, active 13 months ago (about 500 edits up to January 1). All the interactions I've had have been fine, but if there's any disagreement someone want to raise with me (given the potentially controversial area) or if you think 13 months >> 12 months let me know. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the key point is that the person has started to make their presence felt in the last year or so, even if they've been editing for longer, so your nom makes sense to me. It's the same situation for one or two people I have in mind. You do bring up something else though: should anyone be eligible for both awards, as I figured the point of a special newcomers gong was the presumed domination of the MHOTY by more experienced editors -- again, not necessarily a biggie, just testing the waters... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A side effect of copying. I think a single award would be best, so long as everyone gets a barnstar. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they'd be anything wrong with people getting two awards. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I forgot before -- Grandiose, you might want to sign your nom... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I've archived the voting and handed out the awards for 1st, 2nd and 3rd for Historian of the year and 1st for Newcomer of the year. Would someone else mind handing out the Wikiproject Barnstars to the other nominees? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take of all the Newcomer OTY barnstars tonight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Done all the MHOTY barnstars as well now (except one, which modesty prevents...!). Also updated the Awards page with this year's results. Haven't yet added the Newcomer section to Awards, will aim to do so later today when I get time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've awarded Ian's barnstar for his MHOTY nomination. Ian, thanks muchly for sorting these out (and fixing my oversight with adding the results to the Awards page!) Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Need feedback from you guys on an issue as it relates to gun coverage

A discussion is brewing at the Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine talk page over the inclusion or exclusion of a mention of the weapon as it relates to the sandy hook massacre, however in a short review of school shooting articles and there associated articles I am finding inconsistent standards for inclusion/exclusion of the material. According to editors on the talk page, WP:FIREARMS guidelines favor a non mention for criminal use on grounds similar to that of WP:N's one event, yet I find that some firearms articles do mention the associated school shootings and other illicit uses of the weapons in question while others do not.

This has me thinking that perhaps it may be a good idea to tighten up what exactly a firearms article should mention as it relates to infamous usage. I am of the mind that the weapon used should remain in the incident article and that associated info should not jump articles unnecessarily, but I realize that this is milhist and not all guns are used by armed forces. Still, since this gun is apparently used by the military, and because events like this seem to increase as the years go by, I would like to hear back form the rest of you on this point. Should we craft a guideline to add to our own project for these cases, and if so what stance should we adopt as it relates to this issue? TomStar81 (Talk) 12:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The general standard should be whether it had a significant impact. The weapon (and seriously, how the hell can somebody walk off the street and buy military-grade weapons?) clearly had a significant affect on the event; it's probably to early to tell whether the event had a significant impact on the weapon. If it ends up being banned in the States, or the use of that specific weapon becomes the subject of much discussion, or a notable campaign (beyond empty words from politicians) is mounted for a ban, then that should be discussed in the article. That it was the weapon used in a particular incident probably isn't worth mentioning in the article on the weapon unless the killer had a reason for choosing that specific weapon (beyond availability). To give another example, if AK-47 were featured quality, it would seriously cover that weapon's role in many of the world's conflict, largely due to its low price and ease of use, but it wouldn't discuss every notable incident in which it was used, whereas an article on such an incident might well mention the AK-47. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A class review not appearing on the list

Just to say that Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) has been nominated by another editor for A class review; it doesn't seem to be coming up on the usual project A class list, though, although it is appearing on the Fortifications Task Force A class review list. Not sure why there's a discrepancy... Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just added it to Template:WPMILHIST Announcements, if that helps. Best of the season, Hchc. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Christmas to you all too! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

GA1's that should be GA2's

G'day all, just wandering aimlessly about the MILHIST GANs and noticed that at least two of the links take you to the old (failed) GAN, not the new one. Which may explain why they are not getting picked up. Trenck's Pandurs and Battle of Sharon are the two that I found. Can someone fix (and tell me how to do it in future)? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I think you mean in the Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. I tried tinkering with it, but can't seem to fix the issue. I will self administer an uppercut, but in the mean time is there an IT guru in the house? AustralianRupert (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This has arisen again (in an self-interested way) with 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian). As I do a lot of the GAN maintenance on Template:WPMILHIST Announcements, is there a fix for this? Kirill? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no way to do this automatically, since we're potentially linking to a new review page that doesn't actually exist yet. However, I've added a manual override to the {{WPMHA/GAN}} template; when the GAN iteration is explicitly specified (e.g. {{WPMHA/GAN|23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)|2}}), the template will link to the correct review page. Kirill ^[talk] 13:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I reckoned it might be manual, but thanks for fixing this one so promptly and providing the steer on how to fix it in future. I'll try to remember... Not so easy when you're an old bloke. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bonehead

I screwed up awhile back attempting to add a project to the incubator that I would like to delete .. my luck I'd screw that up too. If someone would please remove Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Van Rensselaer's Regiment Albany militia - American Revolution TYVM.... JGVR (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:G7. It isn't currently listed on the incubator page ... I don't know if there's any other tidying that needs doing. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

the botched that link that had been there i deleted a bit ago. I assume that would be it lol TYVM..JGVR (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

An Annual Drive Proposal

I would take the opportunity to propose that we invest in an annual, once a year, drive. I'd like to think this would be held in March to capitalize on the "March Madness" idea, and would cover the entirety of the articles needing attention. If wee were to really push, we may even be able to start a new tradition on Wikipedia for the other projects to follow: a spring cleaning march madness drive to help clear out the old inventory and update some of the articles in need of attention. Since it takes a while to get a drive going I thought I would pose this to the group now, and see if anyone else would back such an idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 December 2012

That sounds good to me. The march timing works for us southern hemisphere-types as well given that it's the end of summer :) Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Only vaguely, Nick (seems like summer only ends around ANZAC Day these days...). But I fulsomely agree with the idea, Tom. Can I suggest that any drive focus on "Need B-Class checklist completed" but first knock off the two smaller "Need work on grammar (no other problems)" (currently 18) and "Need work on article structure (no other problems)" (currently 144). If we start with them, we'll probably get around 120–150 new B class articles straight away, then we can get stuck into the less rewarding Starts/Stubs. We could even tackle "Need work on supporting materials (no other problems)" (currently 504). That could result in around 500 new B class articles just from 666 (crikey...!) article reviews. What do you reckon? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but I will have to sit it out as I will be away mid-Feb to early Apr. There is also an earlier thread on this page with some relevant information. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The beauty of a yearly drive is that we can pick a few issues that are most pertinent to us at the time and turn the children loose to fix the problem, such as it were. Of course, those things that we can fix ourselves can be fixed before a drive, but in the long run the goal is to ensure that the categorization and other matters of interest to our project are addressed over a 31 day period. If we really wanted to be interesting (by which I mean if we really wanted to make things hard for the people running such a drive) we could address it as a one week at a time thing focusing on a blitz for five or so categories at a time, but I think it best if we look to address in principle with this drive the 5-8 categorizes that need the most help for the whole month. That said, we seem to be of the mind that a this is a good idea, so the next question become how do we want to do this and when should we start broadcasting this? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Actions for early 2013

The start of a new year seems a good idea to implement the reforms we discussed following the coordinator election. As a starter, I suggest the following:

• Starting a 'collaboration of the month' trial - I'm happy to look after this, and will start by proposing work on the articles War, Artillery and World War I (unless there are some better suggestions! - an article on a 'smaller' topic would be good)
• Changes to The Bugle - Ian and I are planning to reform how the results of the review process are presented
• A major drive - Tom's suggestion above looks good to me, but there may be other options. It would be good if some coordinators could volunteer to plan and coordinate this.
• B class criteria - do we want to ask the project's membership whether they agree to B6 being added? It would be good to time the implementation of a such a change with a drive.

Does this sound sensible, and are there any other suggestions? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: the collaboration of the month, can I suggest WWII as well? For example, User:PRODUCER and I have collaborated on several FA, A Class and GA WWII (Balkans) articles in the last 12 months, and I think there should be something there for the WWII editors specifically. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. As I've said before I think "War" might be too wide (the others are wide also), but we'll see. Peacemaker, necessarily such a thing doesn't cover all bases - if it did, it would be normal service on Wikipedia :) World War II will have a chunky role in Artillery, and a part in War. So I have a few scruples with the details, but I think they should really happen whatever (think nothing of ignoring me, this time round). The drive above could be three "phases", which move onto the next when they're complete: the shortest backlog, then the middle one, then the whole B-class backlog for the remainder of the month. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The advantage of the War article is that there's lots of scope for people to jump in and add references. You're right about it being a daunting topic though! I don't think that the World War II article lends itself to an exercise like this as it's in fairly good shape, and there's a convention that any significant changes to it are made through discussion on the talk page. The Pacific War article might be a good choice though: it's a major sub-set of the war, but the article sucks. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As a suggestion, for the collaboration of the month, look at each task force and pick an article that would be of major interest to said TF for the collaboration. If you rotate them on a once a month basis, then the odds are good that you will pick up one or two extra people to help out with the article in question. Also, I would recommend steering any collaboration of the month away from (broadly) the maritime arena, or (specifically) battleships, due to the presence of OMT and its still chugging core of editors that crank out rated material for this two fields frequently. IMO, as a result of this, a collaboration would be better focused on an area that receives less than usual attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a really good idea Tom. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fallback for the collaboration could involve picking something off this page. Buggie111 (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I told Santa about two things on my wish list (and I've been good, so I'm hopeful): I'd like to see the GAN process run faster for Milhist, and I'd like to see closer cooperation between Milhist and Wikimedia chapters. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Remembrance Day is #10 on that list and only rated as start class. It's the lowest-hanging fruit (in that the first nine articles are all on very large and/or controversial subjects), but it would make a great TFA for 11 November 2013 (or possibly 2014, for the WWI centenary) and there's enough time to get it up to FA standard. FDR (#14), Veterans Day (#15), and Henry VIII (#21) cold also be good candidates. The USMC and Napolean (#24 and 25 respectively) would be good if people are looking for a bit of a challenge. There are plenty in the top 50 that have the potential to become featured articles if somebody is willing to do the research and give the articles some love. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WT:MIL#GAN order

Just a pointer to a discussion on whether GANs should be listed in reverse order on our announcements template, and whether any part of it can be automated. (I'm in favor of automation if possible.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion has died over there. If we can't automate anything else, could we at least use a bot like the one WT:AVIATION uses to update GANs? People aren't keeping up with them, and a non-broken system is better than a pretty one. (And we missed a FAC in October and a couple of A-class noms in December.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem with a manual system is that if they are listed somewhere other than War and military, they can easily fall through the cracks. An automation that picks up all noms that have our banner should eliminate that issue at least. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

We already have the same bot that the aviation project uses, actually; the bot's output is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Article_alerts#GAN, and my assumption has been that we're updating the list in the announcements template based on that. The main problem with the article alerts is that they don't have a way of producing a simple list of links, but can only be output in the full, verbose format; given the number of articles we're talking about, it's impractical to use that in a template, as it will make the resulting template size impossible to work with.

I am looking into a way to automate the actual lists in the announcement template, incidentally, since that will be necessary for our planned redesign of the project page; however, that will likely not be ready for some time yet. In the meantime, unfortunately, we'll need to keep updating the lists manually; but, as long as we're using the article alerts as a source, it should be pretty easy not to miss anything, even if we only update the list every few days. Kirill ^[talk] 02:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I know where to look, I'm happy to help in doing that until the automation happens. (Self-administers upper-cut). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed my cluster, but I'm sorry to say that there are several articles that haven't been up on the template announcements until today. They are United States v. The Progressive (nominated 7 Oct...), Teuruarii IV (8 November, but currently being reviewed), Lopota Gorge hostage crisis (13 December), Fort Yellowstone (currently being reviewed), Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI, Richard Tomlinson, USS Kentucky (BB-6) (currently being reviewed) and Tammy Duckworth. I will do my penance on United States v. The Progressive. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

On your question, I don't think it matters whether the GANs are listed in the opposite order from everything else, since this is a temporary solution. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

New GLAM proposal

I ran the following proposal for a collaboration with some GLAM (Gallery, Library, Archive or Museum) past some wise people, and they were "broadly in agreement with everything". One recommendation was to "focus – at least initially – on *specific* collaborations with *specific* GLAMs" ... and I agree with that. (Names withheld to protect the guilty ... and also, to let them disavow any knowledge if they don't like the reactions from you guys :) Sorry for the length of this ... I can't figure out what to leave out:

So ... it's my belief we can and should create some on-wiki space devoted to one or more collaborations with one or more prestigious GLAMs. I don't expect this will impress other wikiprojects, and it might generate pushback, but we might attract some new editors, and many professionals aren't going to work with us at all unless what happens in the work-space makes sense to them and to people in their profession ... and that excludes a lot of what they see on Wikipedia. Also, for Wikimedia chapters and subgroups trying to impress local GLAMs, being able to point to some measure of success with prestigious GLAMs would be very helpful, I would think.

There's no reason we can't find something we can be successful with. The amount of work that we routinely put into even one article is impressive, and we've tagged 130K articles. We have lots of history PhDs in the project trained in historiography (historian-speak for "stuff we know that you don't"), and our historical sensibilities are not so far off from established norms. We intentionally try to incorporate a wider range of sources and voices than some historians do ... but not only is that not a failing, I think it's our main point of attraction for a big GLAM. Even if they prefer their materials and methods to our own, we can at least point to a massive amount of diverse material from a massive number of writers ... and I hear that "diversity", "globalization" and "crowdsourcing" are very big words in the GLAM world these days. And we could sell ourselves as even more diverse if we collaborate with other wikiprojects, at least for the purposes of this GLAM project.

I understand that some academics and professionals want to avoid visible participation on Wikipedia because they're concerned it will harm their careers, but that's one of the reasons for this project: we could create a wiki-space that gives the impression (to people who care about such things) that it's more academic- and GLAM-friendly ... and if the net result is acceptable to prestigious GLAMs, I don't see why this collaboration would upset any academic committees. For current Milhisters who want to be more open about their professional work, particularly if they want to collaborate on this GLAM project, they can simply create a second (anonymous) account for such discussions. It would be great for some of our history PhDs to talk more about historiography, for instance; many of them haven't wanted to discuss standard historical methods openly on their main account.

We may get an objection that, however much good this might do us, the GLAM culture in general is highly resistant to serious participation by unpaid hobbyists. That's true ... and everyone who cares about the integrity of their workgroup and their output does the same kind of "gatekeeping". Milhisters certainly do it, in a variety of ways. But whatever their prejudices, some GLAMmers do recognize that some Wikipedians are their kind of people, and I think Milhisters are likely to make a good impression.

Another objection is that real-world work often involves money, and money is inherently corrosive to Wikipedia's editing culture. I'm actually on board with that position. It's not a particularly good idea to remind highly skilled Wikipedians that they could probably be making money with those skills. Money is often used to assign value, and plenty of people (including some GLAMmers) assume that the lack of compensation for Wikipedia work implies that our work isn't very good. But this is, of course, an uninformed opinion. If a friend invites you over for dinner, it would be offensive to whip out your wallet at the end of the meal, because that would suggest that you're not getting that friendship has its own rewards. And "learned societies" of all types tend to develop an "economy" based on respect rather than money. Asking a fellow professor how much they're getting paid is generally considered offensive; value is supposed to come from the work, not the pay. Likewise on Wikipedia, the "coinage" is friendship and respect, and money has the potential to degrade that coinage.

But in my opinion, avoiding the so-called real world out of fear that it will interfere with the way Wikipedia functions also has its downsides, for all of us, individually and as a project. The best compromise I can come up with is this idea of a big (but unpaid) GLAM project that attempts to establish that Milhisters and their work product are valued by prestigious GLAMs. Then, if there are individuals who need more than that, or who are pursuing a related career, they can note their role in our success on a job or school application, or they can work with their local Wikimedia chapter, pointing to the successful GLAM project(s) when applying for nonprofit grants or employment with local groups or local GLAMs. If they succeed, that's fantastic, and I'd like to hear about it ... privately. I suggest we keep discussions of specific money-making projects off Wikipedia, except where those discussions are coming from outside Milhist, such as the WMF's new IEG program (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Individual_Engagement_Grants). - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dank, Hopefully you don't mind me throwing a few thoughts in here...

In general, I think MILHIST is a very good project for some form of external collaboration - it's well-organised, active, and focused. I don't know if you saw Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 115#Wikipedian in Residence: Imperial War Museum a couple of months back, but I believe this is still being worked on - I ran into to someone from the IWM last month and they said the wheels are grinding away. Richard or The Land, late of this parish, may have more news - they're involved, I'm just the external advisor ;-)

I'd be interested to hear more of the sort of projects you have in mind - I do a lot of talking to people in the cultural sector at the moment, and I'd love to try and put you in touch with some interested organisations!

One note, though - I would caution against being too worried over the paid/unpaid distinction - while "money-making" projects are undeniably problematic, simply having someone paid to do the heavy lifting isn't automatically dangerous. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great ... I've already said a lot here, so I'll respond on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

As a general comment, Hawkeye and I (and another Canberra-based editor) met with John Vandenberg (the president of Wikimedia Australia) last week, and one of the points he raised was that the WMF is pretty keen on keeping funding arrangements simple and to the point, and they want to see results. While the WMF was previously comfortable with arrangements where it provided funding to a chapter which in turn passed it on to a GLAM partner to do something, they now prefer the funding to remain with the chapter (I presume that the chapter is then meant to provide funding to any partners as tasks are completed or need to be paid for rather than upfront as has apparently been the case in the past). As such, I imagine that bids for individual funding should be to seek support to implement fairly straightforward arrangements. My reading of the most recent funding round is that the WMF is also being pretty strict about applying its guidelines, and is willing to take on a lot less risk than was the case in the past. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions for which GLAM(s) might be most helpful to us? The D.C. Wikimedia chapter (hereafter WMDC) has had the most success with the Smithsonian and the National Archives. I have a suspicion that the Australian War Museum and Imperial War Museum (hereafter AWM and IWM) wouldn't be nearly as impressed by a collaboration with the Smithsonian as by a collaboration with the AWM or IWM, and of course Andrew is already the Wikipedian-in-Residence at the British Library. I'm torn; I think the suggestion that we probably aren't going to be able to be really successful if we try too much too soon seems reasonsable, but OTOH, Milhist has a tradition of not privileging any one editor or subgroup ... and any big collaboration focused on any one GLAM would obviously be a lot more useful to some Milhisters than others. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My advice would be to start with the low-hanging fruit - i.e. any specific GLAM which was predisposed to work collaboratively with the project. Even if that means a more narrow area, you'll get faster and more enthusiastic progress, and in turn that will typically open up further doors elsewhere. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Dan, you know I love you, but you could spend hours and hours writing reams of text and discussing possible GLAM collaborations in abstract terms. Or you could actually do something about it. Perhaps set up a MilHist-focused editathon at one of the GLAMs that are already working with Wikipedians (like the DC folks are doing at the Smithsonian by the looks of it), and then think about approaching an institution yourself if that's what you want to do. A lot of people like Wikipedia these days, so you might find your potential partners less scared than you think. Or, at least, less scared of public association with Wikipedia; they might be scared of other things, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If it helps any, I'm not bipolar but I'm "bimodal" in some sense ... I go through long periods where I try to get a sense of what's going wrong and try to come up with fixes (and I guess we'll see eventually whether the effort was worth it). I'm just coming out of one of those periods now, so you're likely to see more action and less talk for a while :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

We also need to remember that Wikipedians tend to lose interest quickly, like in this discussion. :-) Dank, I don't know if you were planning on doing this or not, but why don't you try to organize a (small) GLAM project and we'll all pitch in? If it work, we can build on it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Chasing down some leads, more soon. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had this sort of collaboration in mind for ages. I found the Smithsonian GLAM meetup in October both extremely motivating and entirely overwhelming—there were so many resources available (just at one event!) that it was difficult to focus. I very much agree with the suggestions to start quite small. I am willing to help coordinate, and live in the DC area so I am available to pound the pavement for the cause, within reason. Maralia (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of short attention spans, maybe GLAMs would be inclined to work with Wikipedia if they saw large-scale projects like OMT ending successfully, or maybe some quality attention paid to the articles about the museums themselves. It would counteract the image problem of Wikipedia if we could point to successful long-term projects with a broad, comprehensive scope. We'd look like a more organized entity when presenting the case. —Ed!^(talk) 18:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note also this upcoming Civil War event at the Smithsonian, 15th February. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Kleinsma80 (talk · contribs)

May I ask one of you to check up on user Kleinsma80? I think he is kind of new to Wiki but he is not making friends fast. Before things get out of control it might be wise to tone him down a little. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've watch-listed the article in question and left notes for both encouraging them to employ diplomacy rather than actions. In the event it comes to it, I will lock the page and/or block the users, but I would rather not do that if I can help it. In either event, thanks for the heads up. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Article backlog

There is a MILHIST Good Article nomination still outstanding since October, and two remaining from November. I'd like to keep the backlog on military articles down to no more than 28 days. I'll review one of them, but if someone else can find time to do a review or two, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just grabbed the oldest one. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I need a favor

I have wrangled with the reventon ransomware virus and won (I think). The good news - what little there is of it - is that I've been on a hair trigger ever since the tower went down about two years ago now, and it is because of this that I do not think anything too bad has/will happen, but prudence dictates that I inform you all that I've no idea whether or not anything got compromised in the shutdown, so if this account misbehaves at all in the next few weeks by all means block it (in fact desysop it if you have to) and we will sort the details out later. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

IEGs

Link to competing proposals is here; project page is at Meta:Grants:IEG. I think Milhist could put together an Individual Engagement Grant proposal that could compete favorably with the other proposals. Deadline is Feb 15, but they want us to get it in sooner rather than later. If it were up to me ... I could really use help with finding and adapting pre-existing copyediting and wikicode-generating software that we could tailor to the needs of anyone who wants to use it (and the funding would go to whoever is providing or helping with the software, not to me). Anyone else have a 6-month project in mind that would work as an IEG? - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been told Siko, the project coordinator, is very easy to work with ... I'll move forward with this in a few days if no one has a different direction they'd like to go. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to put in a proposal, by all means do so, and let us know how you get on. You don't need our permission, but if you want our blessing, I'm sure I can speak for the other coords and say you have it, given the esteem you're held in here. As a general note, WMUK has a lightweight Microgrants process for relatively small sums of money. You have to be a member to apply, but you don't have to be a UK resident. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Harry. After some research, I'm excited about the project but I don't want to do it as an IEG, at least not yet. More soon-ish. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As a random comment, one idea for a future project might be to help keep the hugely important Hyperwar website going; its excellent collection of WW2 official histories which have entered the public domain is a major source for our articles on the war, but it hasn't been updated since its founder and coordinator passed away last year (at what I believe was a young age). I haven't seen any posts about the site needing support to stay active, but it may become an issue in the future. Its goals seem to be entirely consistent with the WMF's. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Archie McKeller GA review

I need your help again or better guidance regarding the Archie McKeller GA review in context of Dapi89 (talk · contribs)'s conduct. Dapi has twice nominated the article for GA, twice the article was not nominated (see Talk:Archie McKellar/GA1 and Talk:Archie McKellar/GA2). The conflict with the last reviewer has resulted in a 36h block for personal attacks. In conjunction with this dispute he has brought me into the picture, asking me to conduct the next review. Now I fear that my actions in this matter can lead to the perception that I am fraternizing with Dapi thus alienating myself from the community here. I therefore ask for assistance from a neutral and so far uninvolved reviewer. I believe this to be the best approach. Comments? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take care of this if and when he renominates. I've scanned the article and there are plenty of issues that weren't even raised in either of the previous reviews. I'll look over some of the other recent fighter ace reviews to see what level of detail is acceptable as well. It's been a few years since he and I bumped heads so it will be interesting to see if and when he calls me biased and partisan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I had left him some informal comments on his talk page here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you MrB. I understand your concerns. My concerns don't overlap with yours, at least not to the extent that I particularly care about the community or what it thinks of me personally, which why I always say what I mean, and mean what I say, directly. I always felt producing decent articles helped it in a practical way at any rate- which is our/its raison d'etre for being here.

I'd always rather respected Sturmvogel 66, and can't think of a reason to call him bias. Have we bumped heads before Sturm? I can’t remember. If that it is your perception then allow me to correct it.

To the content; I have no issues with complaints/criticisms made by experienced reviewers. That was the point. I had every intention of working it through with the first reviewer; the second review was not appropriate. Anyway, thanks for looking into it both. Dapi89 (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Quarterly reviewing totals

Here's the table of reviews for October through December. Per the conversation last quarter I've included all reviewers for each process, whether or not they participated in ACR - before these are awarded, we should decide what the requirements are for awards.

Username	PR Oct–Dec 12	ACR Oct–Dec 12	FAC Oct–Dec 12	Total Oct–Dec 12	Awarded
User:Acdixon	0	1	1	2	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Anotherclown	0	18	0	18	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Arius1998	0	1	0	1	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:AustralianRupert	1	18	2	21	Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Binksternet	1	0	2	3
User:Brianboulton	1	0	2	3
User:Buckshot06	0	0	1	1
User:Cambalachero	0	0	2	2
User:Carcharoth	0	0	2	2
User:Casliber	0	0	1	1
User:Ceoil	0	0	1	1
User:Ceranthor	0	0	1	1
User:Chiswick Chap	0	0	1	1
User:Cirt	0	0	1	1
User:Cliftonian	0	1	0	1	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Cplakidas	0	1	0	1	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Crisco 1492	0	1	3	4	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Cryptic C62	0	0	1	1
User:Cwmhiraeth	0	0	1	1
User:Dana boomer	0	1	0	1	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Dank	7	16	21	44!	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:DLMcN	0	1	1	2	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Ealdgyth	0	0	1	1
User:Ed!	0	5	2	7	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:ErrantX	0	0	2	2
User:Everyking	0	0	1	1
User:Fifelfoo	0	0	1	1
User:GermanJoe	0	0	3	3
User:Giants2008	0	0	2	2
User:GlitchCraft	1	0	1	2
User:Grandiose	0	13	3	16	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Grapple X	0	0	2	2
User:GregJackP	0	0	2	2
User:Hamiltonstone	0	0	4	4
User:Hawkeye7	0	3	3	6	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Hchc2009	0	6	0	6	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:HJ Mitchell	1	1	2	4	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Hmains	0	1	0	1	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Ian Rose	0	4	7	11	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Jesse V.	0	0	1	1
User:Johnbod	0	0	3	3
User:Joy	0	0	1	1
User:Katangais	0	0	1	1
User:Kauffner	0	0	1	1
User:Kebeta	0	0	1	1
User:Kirk	0	3	1	4	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Magicpiano	0	0	1	1
User:Malleus Fatuorum	0	0	1	1
User:Maralia	0	0	1	1
User:MarchOrDie	0	0	4	4
User:Mark Arsten	0	0	3	3
User:Maunus	0	0	1	1
User:MisterBee1966	0	1	1	2	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Mkativerata	0	0	1	1
User:Montanabw	0	0	1	1
User:Neil916	0	0	1	1
User:Nick-D	1	6	9	16	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria	3	3	24	30	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Noleander	1	0	0	1
User:Parsecboy	0	6	0	6	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Peacemaker67	0	6	0	6	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Petergriffin9901	0	0	1	1
User:PumpkinSky	0	0	1	1
User:Reaper Eternal	0	0	1	1
User:Rschen7754	0	0	1	1
User:Runfellow	1	0	0	1
User:SandyGeorgia	0	0	2	2
User:Sainsf	0	0	1	1
User:Sarastro1	0	0	1	1
User:Simon Burchell	0	0	1	1
User:Sturmvogel 66	0	3	1	4	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
User:TBrandley	0	1	0	1	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:The ed17	0	0	1	1
User:Tim riley	0	0	1	1
User:Tomobe03	0	1	0	1	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:XavierGreen	0	1	0	1	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Zawed	0	3	0	3	AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please check tallies. Also, there was one dynamic IP and two indef-blocked users among the FAC reviews; I've opted not to include these. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Tks for that, as usual, Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Nikki. When we are ready, the award templates are here. In the past the awards have been handed out as follows: WikiChevrons to those completing 10 or more reviews, Content Review Medal to those with 3-9, two stripes for 2 reviews, and one stripe for 1 review. Regarding eligibility for an award, my preference is that the editor participated in at least one Milhist ACR. Additionally, I wonder about varying the awards that are given out. For instance, maybe give the highest contributor a "Content Review Medal of Merit" "The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia" as opposed to the current situation where they receive the same WikiChevrons as any others that did 10 or more. What does everyone think? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. There's a lot of difference between 10 and 40+ reviews... Constantine ✍ 08:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually not so sure. Whilst Dan and Nikki do very valuable work - there's no taking away from that - I think that adding more awards on top would fail to achieve the purpose set out. By the very nature of reviewing, particularly at ACR, all the top reviewers will either be co-ords or practically co-ords in the way they approach the project. The users concerned might like to comment whether more shiny things would make a difference to their frequency of editing, but I doubt it. The Superior Scribe award is also given out on other projects, and any other unique award may still devalue the lower ones. Awards should be concentrated on those they will most affect, which is those people with "spare capacity" to edit more. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this: thanks very much for the sentiment, but fruit salad on the chest is for generals, not Wikipedians ... I'm already co-leader and silver medalist for MHOTY. I can support such an award if you exclude all reviews that don't support an article on all the criteria ... such as prose reviews. I think I'd exclude opposes for the same reason ... you can oppose on just one criterion, but a full support covers everything. And Grandi ... you're right about my lack of "spare capacity", I'm giving it all I've got :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's shelve that idea. What do you think about the other proposal, i.e. the limiting of awards to only those that have participated (as a reviewer) in at least one Milhist ACR? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(undent) I'd say award but accompany with a special note discussing ACR and suggesting they get involved. That would help people get involved whilst ensuring we remain visible. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I like that. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the awards have been handed out yet. I'd do it, but the number of articles that need reviewing seems to be increasing exponentially, and I'd prefer to work on that. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I've started handing out the awards, but the number of them and the time it will take is part of the reason why I feel we should limit them to those that have participated in at least one ACR. If we are as group still of the opinion that we wish to hand out awards to all editors above, then I will need help handing them out. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There is probably a good reason for this, but I'm wondering why we don't credit MILHIST editors for GAN reviews? I know they are not (strictly speaking) MILHIST reviews, but neither are FA's. And another thing... Do the FAC reviews include FLCs? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No preference here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking we could include GANs and FLCs and raise the bar a bit for the numbers for each award? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've moved to "yes" on GANs. Still no opinion on FLCs. - Dank (push to talk) 12:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Special Project idea

G'day all, Looking to pick your brains. User:PRODUCER and I have started kicking around an idea to create a joint special project between WikiProject Yugoslavia and MILHIST on "Yugoslavia in WWII". We are starting to look at a possible structure and workflow/hierarchy, bite-size chunks, possible targets/milestones etc that might be suitable. Here's the (albeit brief) gist of it User talk:Peacemaker67#Operation Benevolent Quake. Just looking for some guidance as to whether now is a good time to start up something in the incubator? Or bin the "special project" idea completely and just do it? Or something else. I appreciated most special projects haven't been glowing success stories, but maybe the answer is to do joint ones with quite limited target areas? Was "Majestic Titan" (which seems to have been quite successful) done as a joint special project with WP:Wikiproject Ships or as a standalone MILHIST thing? What's the minimum participation needed (in your experience)? Interested in your views, advice, guidance. I know, this is not 20 questions. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What sets Majestic Titan apart from the other special project is that the people who edit for the special project were already present long before I incorporated us and them into OMT. Attempting to create a special project before you have confirmed members who will edit the material regardless of whether its incorporated as a special project or not is what will ultimately determine whether the proposed Yugoslavian sp will succeed or fail. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think getting some runs on the board is the key. Then we'll see if we can attract some like-minded editors from both WikiProjects. I spose just watch this space... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking a Wikibreak

G'day all, this is a quick note to let you know that I will be offline until mid-April as I have to go away for work and won't have access to the internet. I'm heading off on Sunday morning, so I will probably be online for a bit tomorrow, though. Anyway, as a favour, would a couple of co-ords mind watchlisting my talk page and responding to any generic project related questions that might get posted? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Good luck, Rupert. I've watchlisted your talk page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Have a good one. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, I had just bounced by here to leave a similar message. With the pending reopening of Western Playland I will be absent here on weekends starting more next week. Also, I am making a second attempt to apply for work at Alfiac, which requires study since you need a license to sell insurance in the state of Texas (<rant>Is there anyplace left in this country where you do not need a license to work?! sheesh, you know...</rant>). Long story short: I may return to being a ghost again for a while. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Helden der Wehrmacht

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone have a talk please with Otberg (talk · contribs). He is threatening to ban me from Wikipedia for referencing the book "Helden der Wehrmacht". I am fully aware that this book is considered a right wing puplication. I had discussed this before on the project talk page. I don't think that he can ban me on the grounds of using a publication which, as long as the info derived is presented in a non POV way. Or am I mistaken here? MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, he can't ban you for it, that much is certain. If it's a Nazi publication, though, you should use it pretty carefully. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

He was so kind as to report me here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In de:Wikipedia you would be banned for such crude things indefinitely. --Otberg (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, it's a content dispute, and this isn't the German Wikipedia, this is the English. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

On the flip side, an edit war would get both of you blocked, so can we talk this out? Misterbee, can you link to the discussion where the source was talked about, and just what are you using the source for in the article? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I had posted this here. I have no intent of getting into an edit war over this issue. My understanding was and still is that information presented in an article needs to presented in a non POV or call it neutral fashion. I believe that I have achieved this. I post every article I work on for review, seeking the feedback of the community. As stated before I follow the general consensus of the community. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so the key question is if the book presents its facts accurately, in comparison with other reliable sources. If it does, then yes, it's fine to use. If there's any doubt, then you should only use it if you are talking about recent right-wing interpretations of an event. Even if it is pretty bad propaganda, it's part of historical scholarship on the topic now; we don't cover our ears and pretend it doesn't exist. We just use it carefully in a way that frames why it's am exceedingly poor source to use. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This might be a topic better discussed at WP:RSN, though it's difficult to judge the status of non-English references for fairly obvious reasons. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Otberg is quite right both on the credibility of the publication - or rather lack thereof - in encyclopedic contexts and how de.wp would have reacted, if a user would have tried to include it in an article (but the later is slightly beside the point, given that other rules apply here). However, in general the compronise list on non-acceptable sources the opposing camps on de.wp hammered out in trying to tackle the more general question underpinning the issue works. Its not perfect but quite useful to orientate oneself especially as a non-native speaker trying to navigate the German historical debates quickly, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is how the topic should be address Alexander Löhr#Portrayal in right wing publications. Opinions? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

unjust "jurisdiction" or "persecution"? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I doubt this is leading anywhere for two reasons: a) you have not put forward a reason why this should be included in the article in question at all despite being challenged on this by Otberg and b) you - intentionally or not - massively missrepresend the stand your reference takes on the issue from the subtitle on. Even if one has no clue of both German and the classicifatory concepts historic scholars deploy within it to deal with this topic area, the good old interwiki would have indicated to you that we are not talking "right wing" here but "far right" (which is naturally also not 1:1 accurate for the actually deployed concept, rechtsextremistisch, but significantly closer to the semantics of the concept used by the reference) --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I really followed much of that, but anywho... Given NPOV requires that significant-minority views be included, the question is perhaps whether Helden der Wehrmacht is a significant-minority view or an insignificant one. WP:PROFRINGE may apply here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I try to ask Mr. Bee again: can you link to the discussion where the source was talked about? --Otberg (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

He already did, above. But here it is again here. It was a pretty short discussion, mind you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

But Mr. Bee told me ...this book was openly discussed at the WPMILHIST talk page. With all the ins and outs. The general consensus was that it should be mentioned. Please feel free to reopen the discussion. Until the community decides otherwise it will remain. Is he kidding me? --Otberg (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be best to take a step back and open a more formal discussion of this matter - I have a (very?) limited understanding of the issues concerning the German-language literature on World War II, but I have almost no idea what's going on here. It would be helpful if each of the editors could explain their views on this source and how it's being used in a non-accusatory way which also assumes that other editors aren't familiar with the underlying issues here or the situation on the German Wikipedia. I'd suggest starting a new thread at WT:MILHIST or WP:RSN for this given that this board isn't well suited to dispute resolution given its limited readership. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the English Wikipedia is that we as editors should take a holistic view on the topic, trying to take a 360° view as much as possible, presenting information in a non-point of view and verifiable way. Verifiability of information is key here. This information should be obtained from reliable sources, whenever possible. The issue here is, that the three books of the series Helden der Wehrmacht are considered far-right publication, which be means of wording and choice of information presented, attempt to propagate the image of the clean Wehrmacht. My reasoning for inclusion is that this "whitewashing" of Wehrmacht soldiers, as done by this book series, is best counterbalanced by information from reliable sources. I feel that hiding the fact from Wikipedia that today's far-right fraction in Germany uses these biographies to drive their point of view is neglecting our obligation as editors to take a holistic view on the topic. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is not censored and does not support political movements, and so long as the source is being used in a neutral fashion rather than to support a political POV, then I don't see the harm in its use. I also think Otberg's hasty reversions as "vandalism" and attempting to use automated AIV tools to affect a bot-induced block, and discredit MrBee1966, is in very bad faith and should be condemned as such. Clearly MrBee1966 is not supporting right-wing beliefs here, and Otberg is trying to use all manner of sources to discredit the reference and the editor without much weight behind it. Mein Kampf is probably a highly right-wing book, but I imagine it is referenced often enough on Wikipedia (including de:wiki with its regulation-style adminship) without the same juvenile behaviour exhibited here. Seems a very simply dispute to me, that needs to be resolved before it blows out of proportion.. en:wiki does not want the same type of reference blacklisting system as de:wiki crudely enforces. It reeks of political manipulation. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd echo Marcus' sentiments, although I'd also urge that the discussion be continued on the article's own talk page in the first instance. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it strikes me that a large communicative problem here is that participants hailing from Anglo-saxon backgrounds are talking about something very different than the German participants who kicked it off.

Please stick with me, this is getting complicated indeed:

The question put forward by MisterBee1966 & Otberg (both German) is not one concerning World War II as a topic (of scholarship) itself (direct level) but an analytical one dealing with the investigation of German debates which in turn focus on World War II (indirect level). One has to face up to the fact that the German academic (and public) debate has spent six decades developing analytical (and polemical) tools to investigate and classify German post-1945 phenomena related to 1933-45. Thus, the question put by these two editors is about the credibility of a source, i.e. how to assess it, whose origin has been subject to the analytical level which in turn assessed the source's quality in representing what the source talks about (German soldiers taking part in World War II).

What Otberg, if I understand him right, wants is proper evidence that qualifies the source in question as being adequate on the direct level, because he is not just rejecting it on his own but has put forward reliable literature stating the source is not a proper one. Thus, he has put forward two tasks really: A) overcoming the regular WP-guideline challenge any material can be subject to and B) overcoming the case made by the literature he bases his case on.

There are a couple of broader points - folks regularly dealing with different language-specific materials often encounter - to keep in mind:

Ones knowledge over proper historic method (especially but not exclusively in dealing with World War II) is only really helpful here, if one has both the German specifications and the global (English language) instruments at hand. To make it even more complex, there is the categorial apperatus deployed by Germans in talking about these (German) specifications, too. This is a methodological issue cutting across the thematic field in how we properly assess material based on the instruments established by the folks that actually do research and not specific to the article in question; Historikerstreit anyone?

Right-wing vs. hard-right: My point above is distinct from but related to that. The problem is/was that the categorial apperatus - which has also found its way into broader German public discourse over the decades in one form or another - codified quite straight forward definitions of what "rechtsextremistisch" is supposed to mean (there are plenty of other categorial distinctions one may or might not find useful as participant in those debates but we are luckily just tasked to wrap them up and not take part).

Bad analogy: What we are talking about in dealing with this specific categoy is on key attributes - if one wants to have a very broad approximation in Anglo-saxon societies - way to the right of both Barry Goldwater and Enoch Powell during their respective climaxes. Should be obvious, that rechtsextremistisch is not adequately transferred by being put in an English-language category -right-wing - that ordinarily (UK) includes people like Ken Clarke, too. The fourth edition of the law dictionary German-English - for example - proposes far-right extremist as an adequate translation instead, if one accepts the reference's classification that ended up in the edit made by MisterBee1966. I don't embrace the dictionaries proposal but I think it illustrates quite nicely why this is not an issue to be dealt with incautiously. Sticking to the comparative classifications established in reputable scholastic literature is advised :) --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Being a admin at de:Wikipedia it is very interesting for me learning, that at en there are users who want to include Neonazi-Propaganda in articles for a holistic view on the topic, trying to take a 360° view as much as possible. Wikipedia in all languages depends on reliable sources. For NPOV is not necessary to include all unserious sources. --Otberg (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with this conversation because we don't work together with de.wp as much as we should ... I don't want one of the few times we do to turn into something unpleasant. Can someone tell me what statements the ref is being used to support? - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia also calls for the use of third-party material rather than primary sources. If the source in question is a third-party alternative to the subject's autobiography, then it is probably a suitable candidate for citing from. Your leading remark regarding "Neonazi propaganda" only strengthens my view that you object to the source on political grounds and does not even relate to the more important matter of whether the source is verifiable. Your insinuation that en:wiki users support Neonazi publications is also noted, and very poor form - I consider it an attack on the integrity of MilHist members. Your role as a de:wiki admin has no bearing here whatsoever, because you're not an en:wiki admin and your idle threats to ban a user for using a source that you personally oppose speak of nothing more than heavy-handedness, as no one supports your motion for a ban, nor are they likely to. Suggest you go cool off and quit trying to use bully tactics to get your way – no one at your level has the authority to ban anyone from Wikipedia, thankfully. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not ready to accept the conclusion that Otberg is doing anything Otberg's position on the use of Helden in this case is inappropriate yet; I need to see what statements the ref is being used to support. The most recent time I discussed a similar issue was when we were trying to decide if David Irving (a Holocaust denier) was a reasonable source to use for some uncontroversial background material in a WWII-related Featured Article Candidate. We decided not to use him, because he had been caught too many times misrepresenting information ... although we decided that if noted historians used him as a source for their own work, that was okay. That's what historians do; they take a big pile of sometimes sketchy material and make judgment calls what to keep and what to throw out. That approach may or may not be a solution here ... it depends what Helden is being used to support. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Dank, the references in the paragraph appear to be being used to support the statement that there have been right-wing efforts to "whitewash", or cover up, Lohr's involvement in war-crimes. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a suitable use of Helden. If it's an important point, then legitimate historians will have covered the point ... and if we trust those historians and they're relying in part on Helden, that's fine. If that's what this is about, then I'm very happy Otberg brought the point to our attention. OTOH, to the extent that there was any direct or implied threat that MisterBee would or should be treated harshly because of his position ... we don't do things that way here, although it's of course to be expected that different language communities will have strong feelings about different things. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that threatening to ban a user and then reporting them for vandalism, as in this case, is unacceptable. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the title "Helden der Wehrmacht", or "Heroes of the Wehrmacht" – firstly, how do we know this is a neonazi publication, given that not all members of the Wehrmacht were extremist Nazis? And who are these people Claudia Fröhlich and Horst-Alfred Heinrich? What gives them credible authority to say who or what is far-right-wing? What re their motives for listing certain authors and titles? The article mentions them as though we should know who they are, but given the lack of detail and the fact the reference link to their book is German, there's not much hope for non-German readers to have a clue why this matter is significant to anyone but German speakers. As a result of this appearing more a matter of German politics and "in the know" disputes, does the section have a place on en:wiki or could it be considered more trouble that it's worth? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at the Alexander Löhr article and see how Helden der Wehrmacht is being used there. I am not deriving any facts from Helden der Wehrmacht. It is exclusively used as an example in context of Löhr's reference in far-right wing publications and its implications in the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. I would totally agree with the criticism brought forward if this book were used as a reference to diminish his responsibilities in the war crimes or downplaying of his actions he was sentenced to death for. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"Helden der Wehrmacht" was first a serial of articles in the National Zeitung. For me it is unacceptable if a user pushes this Nazi-Publication in so many articles about German war criminals. It is even more degoutant if this user is a German. --Otberg (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

These are very personal views; Wikipedia has no guidelines regarding editors' nationality. Suggest you keep opinions pertaining to race and politics to yourself, as you are introducing prejudices, in the form of ousting, which cannot be tolerated. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Pushing Nazi-POV cannot be tolerated... --Otberg (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to prove that, beyond your own opinions. Either present evidence to substantiate your claims or let the matter drop. Your comments are developing into personal attacks, and it will be you who ends up being blocked if you persist. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Otbert, the verb "pushing" doesn't carry the same meaning here for an English speaking audience that you perhaps think it does. "Pushing a Nazi-POV" would imply to me that a editor was going around suggesting that a Nazi perspective on history was correct, despite the international consensus to the contrary. An editor adding an addition to an article, noting that the far-right have recently but falsely tried to claim that a specific war criminal was innocent of war crimes, isn't "pushing a Nazi-POV". You might potentially argue that MisterBee has stepped over the Original Research line, or something similar, but the idea that he's "pushing a Nazi-POV" isn't what most English-speakers would think of by the phrase; rather, his additions have contradicted and condemned the far right perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, but the whole debate centers around the very fact that Otberg has not pushed his private opinion but has put forward a reputable piece of German scholastic work underpinning his position. The book in question has been edited by a well-established Prof. (Heinrich, Fröhlich is a Ph.D.-researcher in the field at another major German university) in the field, it has been properly published in a leading German publishing house for humanities with a reputation for historical publications (Franz Steiner Verlag), and it has been properly vetted in a leading German language review platform for the field (hsozkult-review) that is backed by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. That's what we have on Otberg's side of the argument. What excactly do we have on the other? --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both sides here, let's step back for a moment... Marcus, let's recall that German culture and law prohibits any display of Nazism, something which I assume comes into play on the German Wikipedia. As such, Otberg has a valid point-of-view—even if it's not one we (necessarily) follow on the English Wikipedia. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

German laws dealing with this matter are more complex than that and the German Wikipedia is of course able to display (and indeed does) such symbols. The law distinguishes between "o.k." and "jail" via purpose of display (I wrote parts of the de.wp-guideline on the issue; let's stick with "complicated" for now) but that's not on the table here. On the other hand, you are right to put the point forward, if what you want to highlight is the fact that the WMF ToU require every editor taking part from within German juristiction to respect German law in this respect additionally to US law, too. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, Otbert has no valid POV whatsoever. German Wikipedia may follow German law regarding the display of Naziism, English Wikipedia follows U.S. law where no such law exists. Therefore it is Otbert, not MrBee1966, who has been pushing a POV where it does not belong. Given that Otbert claims to be an admin at de:wiki, I gather the standards for adminship there are either very low, or that he did a lot of arse-licking to gain that position. I back this up with details of his behaviour on en:wiki - enacting de:wiki regulations by removing his hated source from several dozen articles (see edit history), accusing editors of vandalism (self-admission), abusing AVI to trigger an auto-block and circumvent proper discussion (don't believe otherwise, no good faith assumed), threatening bans [2] without provocation, accusing MrBee1966's use of the said source as having been permitted by "friends" [3] (bad faith), accusing Milhist members of promoting NeoNazi propaganda [4]; spamming talk pages [5]; this boy is clearly a bully, harassive and about as offensive in his disposition as I can stand. He has no respect for anyone on en:wiki and his entire campaign is soaked in motive and innuendo, claiming people are right-wing or pro-Nazi when that is clearly not the case. I don't give two hoots if he has admin experience or not, if he's anti-Nazi or not.. until he learns how en:Wiki works, and learns to curb his Blitzkrieg attitude of storm-trooping into unknown territory and giving de:wiki orders, he deserves no respect. Dank suggests we should be working closer with de:wiki. Perhaps, if they were compatible. But if this is the paltry standard of admin representation from de:wiki, count me out. MrBee1966 has been polite and tolerant. Otbert is ignorant and manipulative. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I'm quite surprised that it's really necessary to the discuss if a book called "Heroes of the Wehrmacht - Immortal German soldiers" is a reliable source for Wikipedia. It was published first in a right-wing extremist Newspaper, then printed by a right-wing extremist publishing house (both under control of Gerhard Frey), classified by the historian Claudia Fröhlich and the sociologist Horst-Alfred Heinrich being a right-wing extremist publication. There is no way for using this extremist garbage in any WP-article. --Otberg (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You're making this sound a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it, because it has been said time and time again that the source is NOT being used to support Naziism, but as an example of how right-wing groups aim to defend Nazi war-criminals. Given your standard of English, I assume you understand that, and yet you have failed to comment on that point directly, thus far. So again, I'm asking why oppose the use of a pro-Nazi title as an example of how some German officers were honoured post-war? We also use statements on Wiki by Islamic extremists, and Irish extremists, all of whom may have been in involved in crimes against humanity. We use these sources to highlight their opposing point of view, because that is what encyclopaedias do.. they present both arguments, and refute any that is clearly extreme or criminal. We have articles on wiki that refer to sources with defend paedophilia, gential mutilation, hunting, capital punishment, slavery, etc so why should references to sources that defend Nazis be any different? And don't think for a moment that I defend or support Naziism in the slightest.. my grandfather killed plenty, and I take pride in that. However, that doesn't stop me representing a neutral view of the fact that a site like Wiki should use pro-Nazi sources to show how Nazis were defended, as is clearly the case here. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia uses reliable sources for NPOV-Articles. It's not necessary to use extremist pamphlets directly. If you like to refer opinions of extremists you need reliable secondary sources about this extremists. Your intended use of extremist sources is OR. --Otberg (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that, then you have absolutely no idea what "OR" means, because that is nonsense and I doubt you could even explain that desperate and laughable claim in your own words. You've said yourself that the book promotes Nazism, in title and content, and the mention of them in articles agrees with that also, which challenges the logic of your argument. And again "If you like to... extremists" is leading, accusational, aggressive and again makes me wonder if you're anything but a protocol-enforcing brute-force admin at de:wiki, as if seems you know nothing about academic research. "Your intended use...", don't troll kid, it's not "my" anything. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I said this before, but no-one took the bait. Given NPOV requires that significant-minority views be included, the question is perhaps whether Helden der Wehrmacht is a significant-minority view or an insignificant one. If insignificant, then it can be discarded and there is no need for coverage or it in the article. I must say that from a Balkan perspective, giving "air" to fringe revisionists is fraught with problems. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would seems to me that Otberg's behaviour highlights the significance of the book. Further supported by de:wiki maintaining a list of works that are considered a threat to their articles. Given the amount of books in the world, it only makes sense to note those that are of a significant threat. Though in my opinion, any German law which aims to avoid the repetition of history is fine, whilst any German law which aims to manipulate and control how history is studied is sociopathic. Otberg's anti-Nazi views appear more the result of dogma than common sense, his one-track mind, single goal, with no room for negotiation is alarming. Such forceful tactics might work on de:wiki, has no place here. A lot of laws are draconian and those who pursue them usually cannot justify them or explain their behaviour, as we have witnessed here. I think MrBee1966 is clearly innocent of the bullshit charges Otberg raised, and there is nothing more can be done to him. Otberg needs to stop this futile campaign however, before someone relegates this discussion to ANI and has his behaviour scrutinised there, as it is far from what we should expect of the model admin. Anyone in favour of closing this topic? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Aye. It should be on RSN or the article talk page in any case, not here. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to make one closing statement which I believe may be the cause for the fundamental discrepancy of opinions here. I am simplifying this but the root cause of the issue is what I call an article centric versus source centric Wikipedia philosophy. Our English Wikipedia puts the article into the focal point with our review system assuring a certain standard of quality. We believe in that the readers of our articles are mature enough to form their own opinion on the matter, we trust our readers. The German Wikipedia system seems to be more source centric, emphasizing that only information derived from high quality, politically accepted and written by scholarly editors has a right on Wikipedia (I am overdoing it bit to drive the point). The consequence is that they want to limit information on German Wikipedia to such sources and you will find self-proclaimed gatekeepers of information. Editors are hiding behind the source and notability is essentially derived from the source. I fear, and this is my impression which I cannot substantiate with verifiable evidence, that some elements in the German Wikipedia do not trust their readers to build their own opinion; otherwise I can't explain the blacklisting of sources. So inherently, the German Wikipedia may have a hidden agenda, to put it positively, "educate" their readers or with a negative twist "influence" their readers. While the intentions are positive, the implication may be that they are driving a certain point of view. Both approaches have their pros and cons, I think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Let me give you an analogy of how I feel this German system works. Let's say you go to a library with every known publication on WW2 available in it, where you wish to study, research, and then produce your own conclusions. But the librarian only allows access to all books except ones that are placed on a certain set of shelves, because those books have been blacklisted, condemned or classified as "extremist". It only amounts to one thing: censorship. It's nothing more than the typical abuse of politics against citizens. I wonder how much these German laws are contrary to EU Freedom of Information laws, and whether de:wiki is actually contravening EU law by allowing de:wiki editors to enforce an outright ban on select titles and authors. Personally, I think the entire practice mirrors the Nazi ban on Jewish publications, etc.. so the whole system reeks of hypocrisy. The way these people think, as Otberg despicably proved, that anyone wanting to access or cite from these books is instantly a neo-Nazi or extremist has got to be the most pathetic closed-minded conclusion I've heard in a long time. I have heard of German editors migrating to en:wiki because their freedom to edit is constantly restricted and abused at de:wiki, and I do not welcome German admins trying to shift the same restrictions also. There has been no consensus to disallow select publications, and the chances of there ever being such limits on editing are negligible. As we have seen with regards "The Troubles" (Ireland), we do not control information, we restrict editors who are perhaps abusing information. I can understand how neo-Nazi books might be abused, but that is the fault of the editors who use them for a counter-productive purpose, and not the fault of the titles themselves, which may contain information worth citing for comparative reasons. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with much of what Marcus has said (though not necessarily the tone of it at times) - Otberg's behavior has been highly disruptive and completely unacceptable. One does not threaten bans over a simple content dispute, and the WP:AIV report was clearly inappropriate. I too am concerned about the rather heavy-handed approach by a de.wiki admin here. Perhaps expectations are different there.

Peacemaker: the basic issue here is, there was a significant attempt to whitewash the history of the Wehrmacht after the end of the war, particularly that it did not participate in war crimes to any significant degree, and that those atrocities were solely the fault of the Nazis and, in particular, the SS. A similar thing went on in academia as well - many German historians (which is to say, scholars of German history, not necessarily those of German extraction) ignored the atrocities committed before and during the war, funneling them into Jewish history or elsewhere. These trends only began to be corrected in the 1980s and 1990s, however, when works such as Browning's Ordinary Men started to appear. Helden der Wehrmacht is but one example of this effort to whitewash the history of the Wehrmacht, which goes back to the self-serving memoirs of generals such as Manstein and Guderian. There is nothing wrong with using Helden for the purposes of highlighting this phenomenon, which is an important part of the historiography of these individuals and organizations. Parsecboy (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the Wehrmacht vs Waffen SS vs SS argument. Essentially, to adhere to my point above, we are saying that the revisionist approach represented by Helden IS a significant minority view that needs to be addressed to achieve NPOV in these articles? Just so I'm clear. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless this book clearly states that its purpose is to put a positive spin on these individuals, it's not a suitable source for any material saying that there's such a campaign in the far right literature: you'd need to consult a secondary source for that. I'd note that there are similar issues in the English language literature on the German military in World War II (see the book The Myth of the Eastern Front for a discussion of this). Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mark Satin: A-Class review

Hello Coordinators. I expect you all know what to do with A-Class reviews; a week ago I posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 117#Mark Satin: A-Class review but have had no response. I guess it was the wrong place. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

How could I miss replying to my namesake...?! Actually I saw this on WT:MilHist but got diverted before I could check it. What you've done looks good to me, thank you. Careful though, with that sort of diligence we might try and draft you at the next coordinator elections... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reduction of Project Scope

At the beginning of this year's tranche there was a big hype about reform and improvements of the project. Virtually every proposal discussed petered out and failed to meet anyone's expectations or fell flat on it's face with about as much enthusiasm as a corpse on a roller-coaster. As such, the project still feels like it's barely advancing, member participation is still very much at a stand-still, the same old faces across the board. So, even though I lack any hope of interest, here's a new proposal.

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#cite note-4 of what topics we cover: "Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose."

Propose that "depictions" only encompasses paintings, sculptures, poetry and factual media. If we're tagging things such as Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, They Died With Their Boots On, what are we actually gaining from adding several hundred (or more) semi-fictional films to our maintenance lists that can just as easily be managed by WP:WikiProject Film, and the other huge array of WikiProjects which now operate on Wikipedia that perhaps were not so functional when MilHist Project was founded and started tagging articles back in Wiki's heyday?

I think redefining our scope, narrowing our ground a little, is going to be better suited to the project than a "grab all" system. I imagine even at GA and FA level, historical films are reviewed more by people interested in films rather than history, so the only thing we're really offering is A-class reviewing. Given that few film articles are likely to require the same amount of content off context as its non-fictional counterparts on the actual events, e.g. from the 3 titles given above: D-Day, The Holocaust (Oskar Schindler), George Custer (or Battle of the Little Bighorn).

I'd like to compare a few film articles to their historical counterparts to highlight any patterns.

Film article	Grade	Historical article	Grade
Schindler's List		The Holocaust
		Oskar Schindler
Saving Private Ryan		Normandy landings
The Longest Day
They Died With Their Boots On		George Custer
		Battle of the Little Bighorn
Gettysburg		Battle of Gettysburg
300		Battle of Thermopylae
To Hell and Back		Audie Murphy
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)		World War I Western Front
All Quiet on the Western Front (1979)
Waterloo		Battle of Waterloo
Pearl Harbor		Attack on Pearl Harbor
Battle of Britain		Battle of Britain
The Alamo		Battle of the Alamo
Apocalypse Now		Vietnam War
Stalingrad		Battle of Stalingrad
War and Peace (Voyna i mir)		War and Peace (novel)
		French invasion of Russia
Flags of Our Fathers		Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima
		Battle of Iwo Jima
Patton		George S. Patton
The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc		Joan of Arc
Joan of Arc (1948)
Joan of Arc (1935)
Sink the Bismark		German battleship Bismarck
		Last battle of the battleship Bismarck

I think it's plainly obvious to see what is given actual "military history" priority, and that with the exception of a few high profile/cult films, factual articles are more often higher graded, indicating were most interest lies. I think an easing of our Assessment lists might do some overall good. It shouldn't require anything more than the removal of the project banner from select articles. Task forces, categorisation, etc need not be affected greatly. Perhaps a couple of redundant categories to delete, but someone with AWB or a bot might be able to take advantage of them first, to mass remove the banners from film articles, and save some time? There's not much we can do that other projects can't, so I'd see it as a "lightning of the load" more than abandonment, as members who are interested in addressing historical film articles (which doesn't crop up very often in discussions) can still contribute towards those articles, but more under the wing of Film than Milhist.

Thoughts? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I see the point in some ("300" for one), but there is a large dose of subjectiveness in what "factual media" are. For instance, why is a painting on a Napoleonic episode, or The Surrender of Breda, more "factual" than Patton, Battle of Britain or Waterloo? They all are representations of the popular perception of a specific military history-related topic, and, though not "photographically" accurate in any way, virtually no post-event visual or even written narrative can be 100% "factual" because invariably it (has to) highlight different aspects in different ways due to bias, time/space constraints and/or popular appeal. If we set the bar of "factualness" very high, we'd include only photographs and possibly newsreels/documentary footage (but then, newsreels are also heavily subjective since they are propaganda). Also, if we include a famous anti-war novel like All Quiet on the Western Front in the scope, how can we seriously exclude its film adaptations? Personally I consider war movies, along with paintings, books, etc an invaluable tool for understanding military history, and one which by rights belongs to this project. Consequently I'd favour a case-by-case judgment, retaining those where the work in question has tried to be as accurate as possible a representation (and if it contains fictional elements, they should not be to the detriment of the wider portrayal of the era/event presented) or where it is of historical value in itself (for instance, Breda or David's Napoleonic paintings). Works that are "heavily fictionalized" or merely "set" in a particular period would of course be left out. Constantine ✍ 19:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's the difference between media created to "recreate an event" (as close to truth as possible), and media made to resemble an event (based on truths but altered for entertainment purposes). In terms of books and their screenplay adaptations there can be major differences, and what might come across as a book based on historical fact can become absolute fiction once a studio has altered characters and events to make the viewing experience more enjoyable. For example, as fun as they are in a historical setting, would you consider the Sharpe or Hornblower TV series' strongly indicative of what "military history" should cover? I enjoy all these things too, but in many cases they give a very false impression of history: The Patriot and Braveheart are of particular note when it comes to facetious inaccuracies. I agree there are some works that are strong enough to retain, but I think there are many claimed for very slim reasons that could be shed. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not taking a position on this one, except to say that whenever a Milhist tag is removed from a war-related film, the WP:FILM project's "War films" task force should always be added if it's not present already; the task force is a more useful categorization than the categories are. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with the distinction you're making here (or, more precisely, with how you're proposing to apply it based on medium). Certainly, some works are more historically accurate than others; but this is a distinction purely between accurate and inaccurate works, rather than between, for example, painting and film, and works of any medium can fall into either category. Consider, for example, that paintings have traditionally been the medium of choice for dramatizing historical events; works like Washington Crossing the Delaware or The Death of General Wolfe are very much composed for entertainment (or glorification) value rather than as factually accurate depictions of an event.

More generally, though, I think we need to look at scope from the standpoint of articles that have (or should have) military history content rather than from the standpoint of articles which are purely discussions of military history per se. In this case, articles on famous-but-innacurate depictions of military history (e.g. Braveheart, The Patriot, etc.) are very much of concern to us; each one has a substantial discussion of the film's historical (in)accuracy, and those discussions are definitely genuine military history material.

Finally, as a purely practical matter, I don't think that removing a few hundred articles from a pool of over a hundred thousand will make any appreciable difference on backlogs, workflow, or anything else. If anything, we're likely to spend more time and effort discussing edge cases and trying to determine whether they should be included than we're currently spending on the entire area. Kirill ^[talk] 22:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly it's useful to include films purporting to be based on historical events in the project. Our goal there would be to insure there's some narrative which discusses (via suitable sources) the film portrayal versus reliable historical understanding of events. In terms of the grading comparison above, it's useful to start the discussion and to inventory major events; still, it's a bit of apples (historical event as artistic muse) and oranges (historical event as factually unfolded). where articles are concerned, we can certainly rate historical military event as muse as a lower importance for the project than the event itself. We should look at importance to the project for driving activities such as reducing backlog. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the importance=low or med/high/top parameter in project banners, the MilHist banner does not support importance.. too subjective and doesn't do much anyway (even though a couple of task force assessment tables have it). Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A few years after 300 came out, a professor of mine cited it as the dilemma of historians in modern times: do we really want filmmakers, etc. to adhere directly to history as they are making their media, or do we allow some degree of artistic license? While we desire the former, of course, the latter is what gets the views. As such, I think that these movies are essential parts of military history—they may not necessarily be "history", but they are the only things the general public will see about such events, so I think they should be under our scope. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A-class reviews in need of attention

Hi folks, please see the note I just posted on the main project talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#A-class_reviews_in_need_of_attention. If some of the other coords could set an example by mucking in and giving a review or two, that would be appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I'm back now, so I will take a look at a couple. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)