Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Yevgeny Khaldei photo archives published
editThe World War II photo archives of the famed Soviet photographer Yevgeny Khaldei, best known for his photograph of soldiers raising the Soviet flag on the Reichstag, have been published on russiainphoto.ru in 1024px resolution. Just for 1945 alone there are 1,882 photographs. The photos are all now in public domain since copyright of photographers who worked for TASS news agency during World War II has expired. These photographs can greatly improve the coverage of the Eastern Front, and even include images that would never have been published in the Soviet Union, for example this photograph of soldiers assisting a wounded comrade. Fair warning that the collection includes many images of corpses. Kges1901 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Kges1901: If c:Commons:Batch uploading is an option here, that would be fantastic. There's a Commons page where a person can request a batch upload. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
A fight over at Battle of Buena Vista
editCan one of you have a look? I think I'm about to block the edit-warring IP, but the sourcing isn't all that great (and needs formatting and cleanup--my antediluvian opinion is that the cleaner and stronger something is, the less likely it is to turn into a battleground). Judging from the talk page the matter has been contentious for a decade and a half, but I see no solid discussion and not much of a consensus. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone else might also step forward. I have a few sources and will look into further. My initial reaction is that the IP is correct. It was an American victory. Even if the Mexicans claimed victory, the facts show otherwise. Reliance on Mexican face-saving propaganda, excuses and distortions doesn't really change that. So what if they retreated with their flags and war trophies. I know you can't act on that until I or someone else provides some sources. (I have at least five that might provide some clarity.) But perhaps it is too soon to block the IP. FWIW, I wonder whether this dispute can ever be satisfactorily resolved given the entrenched opinions and need to evaluate objectively somewhat difficult to find sources. Of course, you need to resolve the edit warring regardless of that so I hope any further information will help you. Donner60 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have opened a discussion at Talk:Battle of Buena Vista#Result - again. I would disagree with Donner60 that this should be called an American victory and have made an assessment indicating (IMHO) a see Aftermath result, though there is some need to improve that section. Drmies, you may wish to watch and comment on the discussion there. Input from all would be appreciated. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Drmies Cinderella157 I will defer to Cinderella157's more extensive and well considered research and assessment. Perhaps my initial reaction was based on a too incomplete recollection (although I did intend to follow it up as noted). I was a little too hasty and perhaps spreading myself a little too thinly by addressing this, especially at first glance. Cinderella157 does comment on the need for improvement. Although I am deferring and will not spend considerable additional time on this, I will look at the sources that I have and that I have already noted to see if I can add something useful but will leave it to others after that. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Drmies Cinderella157 This is what I am posting on the article talk page. I leave it here also to complete this thread. These excerpts are from the sources that I have readily at hand. I think they are generally reliable; almost all them are from books by historians whose biographies are shown on Wikipedia pages. They seem to me to support the view that the battle was an American victory though perhaps a near-run thing or pyrrhic victory. I post this for what its worth and leave further handling and resolution of this matter to you and others:
- Drmies Cinderella157 I will defer to Cinderella157's more extensive and well considered research and assessment. Perhaps my initial reaction was based on a too incomplete recollection (although I did intend to follow it up as noted). I was a little too hasty and perhaps spreading myself a little too thinly by addressing this, especially at first glance. Cinderella157 does comment on the need for improvement. Although I am deferring and will not spend considerable additional time on this, I will look at the sources that I have and that I have already noted to see if I can add something useful but will leave it to others after that. Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have opened a discussion at Talk:Battle of Buena Vista#Result - again. I would disagree with Donner60 that this should be called an American victory and have made an assessment indicating (IMHO) a see Aftermath result, though there is some need to improve that section. Drmies, you may wish to watch and comment on the discussion there. Input from all would be appreciated. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
[p. 352] “The Battle of Buena Vista was over. A handful of artillerists backed up by volunteers fighting bravely when bravely led had repulsed a superior force executing a well-conceived and well-nigh successful turning movement. Taylor's losses were high – 746 killed, wounded and missing – but Santa Anna's were five times higher. And on the morning of February 24 he turned his troops and began his horrible retreat to San Luis, arriving there with [353] half of the force he had led north with the next best thing to victory: an announcement of one.” Leckie, Robert. The Wars of America: Volume 1: Quebec to Appomattox. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. OCLC 1940480.
[p.357] “Although the hierarchy mistrusted him, he [Santa Anna] was obviously a lesser evil than Farias, and the Moderados, believing in his “victory” at Buena Vista, also rallied to his support.” Leckie, 1968.
[p. 139] “About 14 percent of his [Zachary Taylor's] men were dead, wounded or missing. Although Mexican losses had been severe and Santa Anna retreated, Old Rough and Ready took little joy in the victory. 'The great loss on both sides,' he wrote, 'has deprived me of everything like pleasure.'” Millett, Allan R. and Peter Maslowski and William B. Feis. For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012. Third Edition. New York: Free Press, 2012. ISBN 978-1-4516-2353-6.
At pages 233-234, historian Steven Woodworth concludes his description of the battle as going back and forth. His final paragraph at page 234 is: “Morning light on February 24 revealed that Santa Anna had retreated, leaving his campfires burning to mask the withdrawal. As the realization of what this meant spread through Taylor's army, cheer after cheer swept along the U.S. lines.” Woodworth, Steven E. Manifest Destinies: America's Westward Expansion and the Road to the Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, 2010. ISBN 978-0-307-26524-1. Pages 151-296 cover the Mexican-American War.
Woodworth [p. 233] and Eisenhower [p.190] give Taylor's casualties as 673. Both note 1,500 missing, Eisenhower states they were deserters.
[p. 190] “Two regiments, in fact reached Buena Vista on the night of February 23. With these reinforcements Taylor's army was as strong as it had been, numerically, before the beginning of the battle. And Taylor's critical supply situation, much to his relief, would be eased the next morning by the arrival of forty wagons.” Eisenhower, John S. D. So Far from God: The U.S. War with Mexico, 1846-1848. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. ISBN 978-0-8061-3279-2. Originally published New York: Random House, 1989.
[p. 191] February 24: “Santa Anna had held a council of war the previous evening, the results of which convinced him that supplies on hand could not sustain another day's attack, He paused at Agua Nueva, rationalizing that he was luring Taylor to more open ground. That may have been so, for he still had superior numbers, even after suffering 2,100 casualties. But Taylor did not bite.” “From Taylor's side the close squeak was soon forgotten, and dispatches to Washington reflected nothing but satisfaction.” Eisenhower goes on to say that Taylor fell back to Monterrey and stayed there. (This left the remainder of the fighting to the forces under Winfield Scott.) Eisenhower, 1989.
[p. 354] “That night Santa Anna, realizing that his effort to destroy the invading American army had failed, vacated the field. Taylor once more had demonstrated his nimble tactical brilliance, chalking up another victory that would stir appreciation and adulation among his countrymen back home. But Polk was right in concluding this was a victory without strategic significance in what was probably an unnecessary battle.” Merry, Robert W. A Country of Vast Designs: James K. Polk, The Mexican War and the Conquest of the American Continent. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009. ISBN 978-0-7432-9744-8.
[p.355] “While Taylor's Buena Vista triumph was much heralded in the land as another reflection of America's growing military strength, Polk chafed at the fact that it did nothing to hasten the war's end.” Merry, 2009.
[p. 259] “On the very day that Scott landed at Veracruz, Santa Anna stumbled back to San Luis Potosi after his defeat at Buena Vista. Early reports tried to cheer Mexico into believing that the battle had been a Mexican victory, but half of the twenty thousand men that Santa Anna had started north with two months before had died in battle, starved to death, or deserted. Only the horror of a foreign invader on Mexican soil could wipe away the stigma of Buena Vista and cause the Mexican populace to rally once more around Santa Anna.” Borneman, Walter R. Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America. New York: Random House, 2008. ISBN 978-1-4000-6560-8. Donner60 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Donner60, Cinderella157, thank you both so much for your help! Drmies (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Help Is there any body sufficiently fluent to search Spanish language sources (eg Google books, Google scholar, JSTOR etc) for the result of the battle in Mexican historiography? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Cinderella157: Maile66 or Karanacs might be useful here. They wrote Texas Revolution a few years back, and Karanacs also did a bunch of the subarticles in that topic. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
One Step Further: Those Whose Gallantry Was Rewarded with the George Cross by Marion Hebblethwaite
editDoes anyone have access to this? There's a citation in James Scully (GC) I'd like to see verified and fleshed out (volume, pages, ISBN). When I came across the article, the citation was to an auctioneer's website (natch), which my browser dislikes. The name of the officer being quoted (Temple Gray) also needs verifying; I couldn't find him in the London Gazette.
(The quote is very idiomatic, and I like the unconscious humour. The Pioneers ("sandbag-fillers") were reckoned the lowest of the low, and I doubt they got first choice of kit. So his commandant says, "Well if you're going to get a gong, we'll need to smarten you up a bit", and sends him to a tailor. As soon as he arrives in London. a Guards RSM says, "You can't see 'Is Majesty looking like that!", and calls in two more tailors. And when he arrived back on Merseyside, the squad sent to subdue this by-now presumably drunk and violent navvy - who wouldn't have been allowed to pay for a drink all evening - weren't needed for that purpose.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The full text of two versions of that book are available through the Internet Archive: [1] Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Space before unit symbol
editI noticed 14.5×114mm and moved it to 14.5×114 mm per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS. Then I noticed there are a bunch more like this. The space seems common enough in sources, and is in agreement with international standards on SI units, as well as our own MOS. Any objection if I fix more of these? Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Based on that page, shouldn't it be 14.5 × 114 mm? Parsecboy (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, thrice yes. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It may not be technically accurate, but is it such common practice within the field that ammunition is specified without spaces that we should follow that practice? (Hohum @) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Even if the practice is no spaces in the academic literature, I'm not sure that conforming to a broader Wikipedia standard here is something we should get up in arms about. Things like names of specific units or even dates are something, but the placement of spaces in the size of an artillery piece is not the hill to die on. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The hill I am standing on was made by a mole. (Hohum @) 21:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The hill I am standing on was made by a mole. (Hohum @) 21:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Here are some observations from n-gram stats:
- Until recently, the "x" is more common than the "×".
- With the "x", the unspaced mm was more common than spaced in the 1990s, but otherwise mostly the spaced mm dominates.
- With the "×", the spaced mm is more common over time.
- The versions with no space between "x" and number are not found (not enough to show up in n-gram stats, or don't match the pattern due to a number before the "x").
- Versions with no space between "×" and number are not tabulated, as the book n-grams parsing also treats the "×" as a separate word (like it does with hyphens and apostrophes).
- So I'd say putting in all the spaces and keeping the "×", as our MOS suggests, is plenty common in sources, and should not be controversial. If there's a tendency in the ammunition field to do differently, it's not obvious. So I'll plan to work on fixing those, unless someone objects and wants to see an RM discussion. ... I just noticed the MOS also suggests units on each number, as "14.5 mm × 114 mm", but I'm pretty sure that's not going to fly here (though this book does it, sometimes). I'll ask about that at the MOS talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I asked at WT:MOSNUM#Ammunition calibre/length naming conventions about revising that bit of the guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It sounds there like several would rather treat it as a name to which the MOS does not apply. If so, how would people prefer to style it? Still follow MOS:NUM on the spaces and cross, but omit the repeated mm? Or something else? Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at scholarly papers, my impression is that the space before the mm is always there, the spaces in the middle are more common than not, and the cross is more common than the x. But this paper has it every which way. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, works by scientists are going to tend to use notation they are familiar with, as are military works and military historians. I think scientific study is the outlier here. Repeating the mm looks very unusual. Presumably most people searching for a specific ammunition will type in and recognise what they are used to, which is probably unspaced everything, and an x, even if this is technically incorrect. It's not a hill I'm prepared to die on though. (Hohum @) 23:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- We do have redirects, you know, so people can type it in any way they like. Nobody needs to die on any hills or be otherwise inconvenienced by whatever style we choose. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, works by scientists are going to tend to use notation they are familiar with, as are military works and military historians. I think scientific study is the outlier here. Repeating the mm looks very unusual. Presumably most people searching for a specific ammunition will type in and recognise what they are used to, which is probably unspaced everything, and an x, even if this is technically incorrect. It's not a hill I'm prepared to die on though. (Hohum @) 23:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Even if the practice is no spaces in the academic literature, I'm not sure that conforming to a broader Wikipedia standard here is something we should get up in arms about. Things like names of specific units or even dates are something, but the placement of spaces in the size of an artillery piece is not the hill to die on. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It may not be technically accurate, but is it such common practice within the field that ammunition is specified without spaces that we should follow that practice? (Hohum @) 17:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, thrice yes. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Why not use spaces and ×, except for bullet dimensions? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- If a great majority of sources didn't use those spaces, that would be a sensible exception to ask for (that pretty much how the MOS treats other styling exceptions). I think a great majority don't use the first mm, but the spacing is really very mixed, so we might as well use WP style for that, no?. Dicklyon (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Google search is not very good at separating and counting the variations, which are numerous. I just found another in a couple of books: "14.5 × 114mm", and sometimes with conversion "14.5 × 114mm (.57 calibre) round". Dicklyon (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- So I propose "14.5 × 114 mm" and such. Keith, I can't tell if you're supporting, objecting, or otherwise this as a plan. Anyone else? Dicklyon (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral. What do the sources day? IMAO several MOS typographical guidelines are based on the preferences of anally-retentive C19 (especially American) compositors, and we should not allow their digestive problems to override common practice in specialised areas. Narky Blert (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Common practice is all over the map, and per WP:CONLEVEL and WP:SSF, we don't generally let specialized areas override central consensus guidelines, so I don't think your comment is helping here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the contrary; if there is no common practice, we should follow the MOS both in the spacing and style of the x and the spacing of the unit. Narky Blert (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK, good. I may have misinterpreted your nasty remark about the MOS before. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the contrary; if there is no common practice, we should follow the MOS both in the spacing and style of the x and the spacing of the unit. Narky Blert (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Common practice is all over the map, and per WP:CONLEVEL and WP:SSF, we don't generally let specialized areas override central consensus guidelines, so I don't think your comment is helping here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
If anyone wants to discuss further, we should do a multi-RM. I'll go ahead and start some moves, and if anyone reverts or objects I'll open the RM. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Possibly a forgotten Confederate Regiment?
editSo I'm not sure where to exactly post this; but I believe this could be a fine location for it?"
The regiment in question is the 42nd North Carolina Infantry Regiment.
This was also the regiment that Tom Dula enlisted in, specifically Company K, which was from Mecklenburg County, Union County, and Wilkes County, North Carolina.
I know for sure this regiment existed as it has multiple pages on different websites, including NPS.gov ([2])
The main reason I am asking this question is because I am unable to find a Wikipedia page for it. I'd love if anyone has additional info on it, thanks! Squogg (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Squogg: A quick google suggests that you may have found a gap in Wikipedia, and that the regiment may be notable and therefore deserve writing up. You may just have won yourself the intimidating job of writing your first article; notoriously the most difficult thing you will ever do on Wikipedia. I suggest that you do the best you can by drafting an article in your personal sandbox, and then ask again here for advice and comments. (WP:AFC is another route, but you won't get specialist feedback.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Narky! Thank you for the response. I've attempted to create a page for it.
- Draft:42nd North Carolina Infantry Regiment
- It has also been submitted for an article Squogg (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Request for a reading on Crusader history at Ascalon
editHello! I've written a detailed description of Ascalon during the Crusader period. I am not an expert on Crusader history, and did my best. It would be glad of some editors could check it, and see if it is clear, if there are some rewording needed, fact checks and whatever. Thanks in advance! Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales § Cadw's renaming of castles. On how to recognise the recent adoption of Welsh names in English for castles in Wales. DankJae 19:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Flags of Bavarian commanders at the Assault of Brussels (1708)
editI have just created a page for the Assault on Brussels (1708), a battle during the War of the Spanish Succession, but I am not sure what flags to use for the commanders on the Bourbon side. Maximilian of Bavaria and D'Arco were from the Electorate of Bavaria but after 1704 Bavaria was occupied by Austria. Maximilian and D'Arco subsequently went into exile with few of their troops. However, despite these two commanders leading this assault on Brussels, I have no source that states that Bavarian troops joined the French in their assaults. Should I in this instance show Bavaria as a belligerent? And should I show the flag of Bavaria next to Maximilian and D'Arco or rather the flags of the troops they commanded? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to not use flags at all in this article. They seem to me to be more likely to confuse than enlighten a reader. See WP:MILMOS#FLAGS. And is there a reason for representing France with the royal standard rather than the national flag? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Which national flag? The modern flag?
- As for your other point. You might be right that it is can be confusing, but that still leaves us with the question if Bavaria should be mentioned at all in the infobox. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- As a combatant? I don't think so. You can show that two Bavarians participated, which hardly qualifies, even if one was the titular ruler. (Given the state of the HRE at the time "ruler" is probably over generous at the best of times, which these weren't.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @DavidDijkgraaf! After a bit of research (I can list the sources in the article's talk page), I was able to locate the remaining Bavarian troops in the French alliance. They were part of Berwick's Rhine army defending Alsace and the lines of the Lauter and Saar rivers. They still stayed there when Berwick was called to Flanders. When Maximilian Emanuel set off for his temporary residence at Mons to rally troops for the assault, almost no Bavarian troops accompanied him. He gathered local garrisons into a small assault force, probably either French or "pro-French" Spanish troops. The only Bavarian troops participating that I could identify were 3 squadrons of his guard and the personal regiment of Comte d'Arco. Therefore Bavaria should not be listed as a combatant. When it comes to flags, all choices seem misleading to me. Maximilian still commanded over Bavarian troops -but not here, he still called himself ruler of Bavaria - but was outlawed and in exile, he wasn't Governor of the Spanish Netherlands anymore - but still governed over parts of it from time to time. So preferably no flags either. Palastwache (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Palastwache Thank you very much! Yeah, you're probably right that the situation was to complex to have flags for the Bourbon commanders. As for the combatant status. 3 Bavarian squadrons and one regiment still seems significant enough to include them. They only reason not to seems to be if these Bavarian troops served within the French or Spanish armies. Maybe I am wrong though. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessarily see it as a significant force but given the small size of the overall army and the presence of the personal guard of the (titular) ruler, you might still list it. Palastwache (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, the overal army just consisted of 14 battalions and 18 squadrons. Could you give me the source for the precense of Bavarian troops btw? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've just added it on the article's talk page :) Palastwache (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, the overal army just consisted of 14 battalions and 18 squadrons. Could you give me the source for the precense of Bavarian troops btw? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessarily see it as a significant force but given the small size of the overall army and the presence of the personal guard of the (titular) ruler, you might still list it. Palastwache (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Palastwache Thank you very much! Yeah, you're probably right that the situation was to complex to have flags for the Bourbon commanders. As for the combatant status. 3 Bavarian squadrons and one regiment still seems significant enough to include them. They only reason not to seems to be if these Bavarian troops served within the French or Spanish armies. Maybe I am wrong though. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
FAR for Thomas C. Hindman
editI have nominated Thomas C. Hindman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Woodrow Wilson has an RfC
editWoodrow Wilson has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Battle of Halen 1914
editFilled in some missing citations only to notice that text from Hove, P. van den (2014). "Halen, 12th of August, 1914: A Forgotten Battle in a Forgotten Landscape?". Brussels: Flanders Heritage Agency. Retrieved 23 December 2019 appears to have been pasted in rather than paraphrased. Copy edited the section but it might do with another look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Elmer W. Harris
editPlease see discussion at Talk:Elmer W. Harris#Elmer W. Harris where the content of the article and the subject's status as a Korean War fighter ace are disputed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Trịnh Tố Tâm advice
editHowdy. I created Trịnh Tố Tâm through using the Vietnamese article as a base. The statement that he personally killed 272 enemies during the Vietnam War is exceptional, but I can't find any sources that criticize that number. I'm not sure I'm the one to tell what's propaganda or not. Would it be incorrect to use words such as "allegedly" or "claimed" as I did in the article, or would this be a mild form of WP:OR as the sources do not seem to use this language? With this exceptionalism in mind, what articles would you link to this one in order to de-orphan in? Mbdfar (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello! There has been several threads, some archived, about which of his decorations should be mentioned where in the article, like the infobox, and if a primary source should be used. One ongoing thread is Talk:JD_Vance#Why_do_you_keep_deleting_his_medals?, and it lists some other threads. If you have an opinion, please join. In case you didn't know, JD Vance is Donald Trumps VP-candidate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Remember Wikipedia:Ownership of content. There is consensus on the inclusion of medals yet you seem to have devoted an inordinate amount of time in pushing for undue change. Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and perhaps you could take a break from hyperediting a single article above all. There is also no need for Wikipedia:Canvassing. 73.123.180.173 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, there is no consensus to include them. His awards are in the category of "was present with a pulse"; I have all of his same medals (or the Army equivalent) with the exception of the sea service medal. They're routine, run-of-the-mill awards that are handed out by the literal hundreds of thousands, and they do not belong in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- If there was consensus to include the medal, we wouldn't have like ten separate discussions on the topic. There's more discussions than Vance has medals. Cortador (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 220, August 2024
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Requested move that would benefit from further views
editPlease see: Talk:Air raids on Australia, 1942–1943#Requested move 25 July 2024 for a discussion of the best title for this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Hermann Göring has an RfC
editHermann Göring has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Philippe Pétain has an RfC
editPhilippe Pétain has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)