Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 73


Contents

Germany, and general ambuguity

This probably came up before. Having heard several arguments already, in consultation with Kirill I would like to ask for a consensus on a consistent Project-wide approach.
I am working on an Eastern Front project that will link to many existing Eastern Front articles. Currently throughout many Eastern Front articles I have visited there is no consistency to the approach of reference terminology used for the states, organisations and armed Services concerned.
The subjects are Lexical ambiguity and Semantic ambiguity
. 'Germans' is probably the worst because sometimes it refers to actions where non-Germans also participated, but certainly does not refer to ALL Germans as an ethnic group. Often by 'Germans' the command decision is meant, while at other times the reference is to actions of combat units. Sometimes one paragraph refers to the ground troops, and in the following paragraph (if one knows the context) it refers to Luftwaffe. There are also references to Germany, Nazi Germany, Axis, Third Reich, and just Nazis. In the context of military operations I think the use of 'Germany' is way too general. In the sense of referring to the state, Wikipedia elsewhere confirms that the English contemporary term for Germany was the German Reich, with Nazi Germany being a term created by Allied propaganda. Third Reich was on the other hand created by Goebbels' propaganda machine. Nazis only refers to the Nazi Party and its members, who were very few in number, significantly concentrated in the organisation of the Gestapo and the SS.
The same applies to other non-German speaking participants on the Axis side.
The Soviet side is similarly, if less to affected (I'll spare you the details).

Personally I would prefer a more actual approach as a solution. I could be accused of ambiguity intolerance, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to be authoritative :O) so lets not subject the readers to “tendency to perceive or interpret information marked by vague, incomplete, fragmented, multiple, probable, unstructured, uncertain, inconsistent, contrary, contradictory, or unclear meanings as actual or potential sources of psychological discomfort or threat.” :o) It certainly avoids editing wars through proactive premeditative authoring :o)

Proposals

  • Where a decision is concerned, name the decision maker, and [1]
    Example: its not Germans decided to attack, but Commander M of division N decided to attack.
  • Where an action is concerned, name the military organisation at that level of abstraction/hierarchy.[2] Example: its not Germans attacked towards the northern part of Stalingrad, but Infantry regiment 1234 attacked towards the southern part of Stalingrad.
  • Where the action or decision is military in nature do not use political or propaganda terms. Example: Its not Nazis that attacked towards Senyavkino village, but the 234th Infantry division (Wehrmacht).
  • Be specific about Arm and Service. Example: Germans as a European ethnicity did not carry out a bombing raid, but Luftwaffe did (name unit if known).

I would actually go so far as to suggest this be included in the Style Guide as it helps to Categorize the articles also.

I also appreciate that Germany is the more commonly used term, but what is the level of ambiguity and abstraction that this applies to? Maybe when talking about industrial capacity during WW2, or use of rail for military logistics, but surely not at campaign and battle level. I would suggest that perhaps there is less imperative to be abstract in military history die to the hierarchical nature of events we describe in the articles, and this description should be portrayed appropriately.

Proposal

  • Request that level of ambiguity is appropriate to the context of the article and section content structure. (I know its there, so maybe needs to be either expanded, or a template created to tag new articles?)

In any case, I look forward to responses and consensus whatever it is. Naturally I would prefer the more factual and precise approach where the information is known.
It certainly avoids {{Confusing|date=December 2007}}
--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses

Broadly speaking, I think that there are contextual distinctions to be considered; different usage may be more or less appropriate depending on the historical context. For modern, well-documented warfare, for example, it may be reasonable to indicate units, commanders, and so forth rather more precisely than would be sensible for, say, medieval warfare. For example, I would argue that a passage like:

The French infantry—mostly Gascons—had meanwhile started down the slope towards Sanseverino. Montluc, noting that the disorder of the Italians had forced them to a standstill, suggested that De Tais attack Madruzzo's advancing column of landsknechts instead; this advice was accepted, and the French formation turned left in an attempt to strike the landsknechts in the flank. Madruzzo responded by splitting his column into two separate portions, one of which moved to intercept the French while the other continued up the slope towards the Swiss waiting at the crest.

is perfectly appropriate for an article on 16th-century warfare; historians dealing with the period ubiquitously refer to the nationalities of troops rather than their (typically unknown or nonexistent) organizational arrangement.
So while I have nothing against urging specificity where appropriate, I am concerned that the first set of proposals are overly specific to modern warfare to be generally applicable. I'd suggest instead providing them as examples to the main principle of minimizing ambiguity.
In addition, there is the matter of article abstraction rather than topic abstraction. The Battle of Stalingrad article is an appropriate place to mention particular units; the World War II article, not so much. And yet we would presumably want some statement in the latter along the lines of "the Axis attacked Stalingrad". So, depending on the textual context, less detail may be just as appropriate as more detail. Kirill 23:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
More precision doesn't always make for more accuracy or clarity. One thing that I would see that would be of benefit would be some style guidelines around WWII and the use of German/Nazi/Russian/Soviet/Red Army with regards to those forces. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth no matter what "consistency" is proposed, but some sort of consensus on terminology is probably overdue particularly where a series of articles are part of a larger project. —PētersV (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that's the core of what Mrg3105 was getting at, originally; but that grew into a somewhat more general proposal. We can probably work out a specific convention of some sort without making any general recommendations; but it might be worth trying to come up with some general guidance as well, since the question will no doubt come up in other cases. Kirill 01:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize to be the troublemaker, but I think I must disagree with your proposal. Certainly, your proposal sounds logical, and avoiding ambiguity sounds like a good idea, but in point of fact, these kinds of generalizations make for simpler, easier to read, easier to understand writing. These kinds of generalizations are quite common in even the most academic, professional, formal writing, and the specifics to which they refer are generally understood. In addition, the kinds of extreme specifics you suggest are precisely the kind of things which, I get the impression, are among the primary reasons that mainstream historians don't care much for military history buffs. Take for example, the sentences "Japan attacked the United States on December 7, 1941" and "Japan surrendered to the United States on August 15, 1945." These are simple and straight-forward, and it is generally understood that "Japan" and "the United States" in these sentences do not refer to the full citizenry of these countries, or even the full military or government of these countries. Certainly, the details of precisely which units, which people were involved in a given military action is important, and valuable to include in the detailed description of that event, but when excessive detail is used in place of every single reference to a simpler term, such as the name of a country, it bogs down the entire article and makes it much more difficult and boring to read for the average reader. Include the details where necessary, where appropriate, but I think it's better to use simpler terms, and generalizations, in more general sections. I'd vote that we not bend over backwards to satisfy some concept of political correctness (i.e. some Germans feeling bad that "the Germans" rather than "the 47th Air Wing of the Luftwaffe" is being blamed for attacking such-and-such target in such-and-such battle). LordAmeth (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that if a historian wanted to describe the entirety of the war between the USA and Japan in two sentences then those would be it, with the minor amendment that the Japanese surrendered to the Allies even if it was on a US Navy vessel. However this would make for a poor article for Wikipedia, tagged for speedy deletion no doubt.
Not all history, as I'm sure you are aware, is the same. Some historians can take greater liberty then others, particularly given a period as Kirill illustrated. WWII, and the Eastern Front do not lend themselves to ambiguity easily, and this trend gets worse as humanity forged ahead into the information age. Just look as the stats for this very Project :o) What? You DON'T know how many unassessed articles there will be at 11:59:59 on the 31st of December 2007? However I take your point. It may be that my specialty, economic history, predisposes me to this way of looking at history. I blame it on trying to find price fluctuations on the London wool warths during the late 14th century. However my argument is this: What degree of precision separates the historian from the reader? If the language and the level of ambiguity is such that the reader could probably with a little effort have collected the research data him or her self, why would they bother to read Wikipedia articles? Wikipedia is after all purported to be a reliable and authoritative source of information to be offered for sale. There is a certain degree of professional pride one develops in thinking about the concept :o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
As PētersV noted above, some conventions related to the Eastern Front specifically would probably be a good thing, regardless of whether we come up with anything universal. (We could probably branch that aspect of the discussion over to WT:WWII, if that's all it'll cover.) Kirill 15:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
(I'm German.)I think the proposal is a good idea, but too much detailed information might kill any interest of the reader. To be a bit specific and use broad terms on the other hand, I suggest that Wehrmacht and/or SS attacked Blabla or Luftwaffe bombed Blublub. Is this a fair solution to use the the common English term for the attacking organization without the need for details? German Reich as the official name at that time is a good idea instead of Nazi Germany, another possibility would be Third Reich(one self-designation). Nazi or Nazi Germany is sometimes preferred to emphasize the difference from Germany, however, the Nazi party had almost 50% support in the legal votes of the Weimar Republic, giving most Germans a hard time to explain why a "nation of resistance fighters" was so collaborative. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
A useful proposal. I've certainly encountered times where the use of 'Germany' or 'Japan' formed part of an implicit point of view in an article. Specifying an ideology (e.g. 'Nazi Germany' for 'Germany' or 'the forces of the Third Reich' for 'Wehrmacht') is even more implicitly POV. I agree that, broadly speaking, the way out of this is with greater precision as you suggest. However, there are plenty of instances where 'German' is a less confusing shorthand than the alternatives. I find my natural instinct on hearing a new subunit referred to is to ask "Which side were they on?" and frequently find myself wondering if a particular unit was engaged by the enemy or by friendly fire. The easiest way to resolve this is to say "... the German 76th Battalion" rather than "the 76th Battalion". If it doesn't become a project guideline, I would certainly suggest you make it an essay. The Land (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
My other consideration is for the ability to link to articles authored and edited by others. For example it is lacking in respect of other members of the community, never mind the MilHist Project to link to Germany where someone had written an article on the XX Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), and I actually need to illustrate the role of the said division in the article. Instead all the reader can look forward to is doing research from a very (the most) general category of all things German!-- mrg3105mrg3105 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that specific, informative links are better than general, uninformative ones. However most of the text of an article is not going to be links! The Land (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The proposal looks quite appropriate, and I broadly support it. However there might be cases when a more general approach could be appropriate, as for example: in an introductory section of an article, it might not be relevant or even useful to be so specific as to detail units (eg: "KG51") or even service branches (eg: "Luftwaffe"), but instead just to make reference to the opponent involved (eg: the "Germans" or the "Axis"). It'd be useful to check the style used in recognized reference works by authors assumed to be neutral/objective (if that is possible). It should depend on the context and scope of the information to be conveyed to the readers. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that we need to be specific within the article as in naming units etc

However what about in the “Combatant” section of the article where the nationalities of the countries involved are named, should we use “Germany” or “German Reich” etc etc? Bearing in mind that I have always kept a more detailed list of units in the “Strength” section along with stats etc --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Initial draft

Without getting into the specific matter of WWII terminology—other people are far better qualified than I am to debate the finer points of that—I'd like to propose the following as an initial draft for a general statement on the issue:

In general, articles should strive to be precise. Where the names of specific operations, formations, or commanders are available, for example, it is usually better to use them instead of more general terms; "The Ninth United States Army would launch an offensive, codenamed Operation Grenade, across the Roer" is likely to be more helpful to the reader than "The United States would launch an offensive across the Roer".
It is important to note, however, that the level of precision in an article should be appropriate for its scope. Articles dealing with narrower and more specialized topics can use more specific terminology than may be feasible in articles dealing with broad overviews or very general topics; precision should not be pursued to such an extent that it impairs the average reader's understanding of the topic.

It is admittedly brief, but I think it captures the overall point without getting bogged down in potentially controversial matters of specific usage. Comments? Kirill 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems a good guideline to start with. I can suggest that the category assigned to the article should be suggestive of the detail required. The subject of 'Mazovian War' (hypothetical example) need only cover the general aspects of war strategies in Category:Wars, where as in Category:battles the battle of Stumpy Creek will need to specify which Mazovian units participated and what they did. This is related to my enquiry on what goes where.-- mrg3105mrg3105 05:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I am horrified that the Mazovian War is being treated in this offhand manner. The actions of the Polish Airborne at Stumpy Creek against the crack Fourth Mazovian Shock Army, and the desperate counterattack by 7th Armoured Brigade, are landmarks in military history. I implore everybody concerned to take this more seriously..... :) Buckshot06 (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I plead ignorance since this is one of those typical hypothetical opponents that the Australian Army uses for 'opponent' forces, and I'm only familiar with the Polish spelling of the region, but having now looked it up, I get Mazowsze (Mazovia)! :O\ My apologies to anyone of Polish ethnicity for an unintended effect of my hypothetical example —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest using guidelines from a secret war of comparable desperation, codenamed The Mouse That Roared?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
So, any further comments (particularly objections)? If not, shall we go with this draft for the time being? Kirill 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The proposal as it stands now sounds fine to me, I suppose, though it is awfully vague (perhaps necessarily) on just what level of precision is expected for various degrees of scope. On a somewhat separate note, might I suggest that some element be added to the proposal to suggest that less precise terms are often more appropriate in introductory paragraphs, and more precise terms should usually be restricted to main sections?
For example, an article might start with "The Battle of Iwo Jima took place between the United States and Japan in February and March 1945 during the Pacific Campaign of World War II." General terms such as "United States" and "Japan" are used, in order to introduce the topic in a direct and straightforward way. This also serves, I think, to help convey the importance and centrality of the battle, expressing that it was an element of a war between nations, not merely a war between detachments or regiments. Only later in the article, in the main section, are terms such as "the Thirty-First (Japanese) Army" and "3rd, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions, under V Amphibious Corps" used. This level of precision is interesting to the military historian, and essential for, well, for precision's sake, but would only be distracting or confusing to the casual reader, if included in the first sentences of the introduction.
I imagine (I hope) that the majority of editors would understand what I mean by this distinction - the importance of using simpler, more general terms in the intro and saving the details for the core main sections - and would agree, but I think that perhaps spelling it out in our proposed policy/guideline would be a good idea. LordAmeth (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not entirely convinced that we need to make this explicit; but perhaps we could get away with simply modifying the second paragraph of the draft to:
It is important to note, however, that the level of precision in an article should be appropriate for its scope. Articles dealing with narrower and more specialized topics can use more specific terminology than may be feasible in articles dealing with broad overviews or very general topics; and general terminology is often appropriate in an introductory section even where more specific terms are used in the body of the article. Precision should not be pursued to such an extent that it impairs the average reader's understanding of the topic.
(addition in bold). Does that work for everyone, or are there objections to such a change? Kirill 14:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the above wording is appropriate, reinforcing fairly straightforward concepts without being patronising. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, as there haven't been any objections, I've added the above at WP:MILMOS#PRECISE. Further discussion is, of course, entirely welcome. Kirill 02:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Þingalið

I've just done a GA assessment on the article Þingalið. It's mainly OK, although short and possibly a bit pro- in its tone. My main concern with it is a feeling, and I can't really put it any higher than that, that it may be an OR synthesis. I've given some of my reasoning here. I suppose my question is: was the Þingalið really a largely Scandanavian standing army in the employ of the English kings for around 50 years? Grateful if someone with some background in this area could set me straight. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/British military history task force#Þingalið. Kirill 17:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

WORLD WAR II (revived)

The following was raised in December and no one responded to it and then someone quite rudely archived it:

World War II
Bit of a dispute at Webley Revolver; I was under the impression that British Commonwealth oriented articles would use the terminology "Second World War" rather than World War II, which is the American term for that conflict?68.144.31.71 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this something we can address? I also note a disturbing trend towards laziness in using the abbreviation "WWII" in articles; seems rather unencylopedic when sprinkled throughout sentences.139.48.25.61 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, "Second World War" remains more common in CE, but since the actual article is located at World War II, that usage tends to crop up more in articles. Kirill 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that although the Second World War is correct usage, if consistently applied then edits have to be performed through an article, and this would require me for one to read the lot. I will change in the Eastern front because the Russian alternative and the German one are reflective of the Second World War and not World War II (where Great Patriotic is not used in Russian).--mrg3105mrg3105 05:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but aren't we disagreeing about things that are so minor as to be unimportant? Surely the 0.01% difference between 'Second World War' and 'World War II' is completely unimportant, except that both should be written out in full - 'WWII' is indeed lazy. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree somewhat with Buckshot. I use both interchangeably. I must admit, I prefer the tone of 'Second World War' but then, one of my favourite books on the subject is called 'Second World War'. It is also a term with more consistancy with other historical references. I mean, can you imagine if we called it Punic War 2 (Rome Strikes Back?) or the horriblness of Opium War 2 (now there is a great title for a children's film. Possibly involving animated sheep. I'll let y'all decide). Lets just hope we never do that to the Falklands War. Falkands War 2: Attack of the Zombie Thatcher. Narson (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Hans-Joachim Marseille now open

The peer review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying hi

William Tecumseh Sherman, recently featured on Commons.
William Tecumseh Sherman, recently featured on Commons.
Douglas MacArthur, currently at Wikipedia picture peer review.
Douglas MacArthur, currently at Wikipedia picture peer review.

It's been quite a while since I've touched bases over here, so dropping by to mention some recent work. I've been surveying huge numbers of historic photographs and nominating the best ones for FPC. My workshop page is at User:Durova/Landmark images. A lot of significant material deals with military history, so please give me a heads up if you know of a high quality military history image at least 1000px on its largest dimension. I'll address artifacts and scratches and other flaws if it has potential.

Been spending most of my writing time lately with the textile arts project, which is seriously undermanned. Would anyone be interested in a joint project drive to raise Bayeux Tapestry from B-class to FA? DurovaCharge! 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Darn thing is an embroidery ;) Curse you changeling bishop! Narson (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I hope this doesn't cross the ethical line about canvassing: a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt in Rough Rider uniform is up for FPC. DurovaCharge! 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily peer review, but why not? Psychological operations (United States)

In a roundabout way, I've come to make some rather substantial edits to Psychological Operations (United States)‎. In the CIA fracas, even some of the people most offended by not concluding the CIA is the Dark Side of the Force liked a section I put in, defining the colors of propaganda. It was suggested, in a friendly way, that the material might move to the psychological operations page and be linked from a summary in the CIA article.

Incidentally, there is a fairly recently declassified volume of the Foreign Relations of the United States series, "1950-1955, The Intelligence Community", which contains a number of historically key documents that had been classified until very recently. People here may want to look at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/truman/c24687.htm

Anyway, I think I made significant headway on psychological operations, more by adding material and definitions than taking out things. Well -- I did take out the reference to psychological operations at the Waco siege, because I really don't think that kind of law enforcement exercise, fiasco that it was, is simply in the scope of the military, diplomatic, and intelligence/special operations topics usually associated with psychological operations, even as a subset of information operations.

It could definitely stand some additions in the history part, especially in WWII. When I thought about it, however, some of the most fascinating operations were British, and this was defined as a US article. Given the current debate over UK vs. US nomenclature for what I shall call Big Mistake Two, I found that a bit amusing.

Apropos of that period, I once had what I would have sworn was an MIT Press history of psychological operations in The Time That Has No Agreed Name. In particular, there was a really excellent section on making use of Japanese cultural anthropology during the Battle of Okinawa. I cannot find this book in any search I've done. My recollection is that it was a fairly thick trade paperback with black print on a white cover. Am I bringing up false memories, or does anyone know the book? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I've seen the source, but I have heard an anthro prof of mine criticize the use of U.S. anthro v Japan in the War That has II Conflicting Names. Maybe it's in Gilmore, You Can't Fight Tanks with Bayonets (UoNebraska Press, 1998)? Trekphiler (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

200th anniversary of the Finnish War

The Finnish War is a B-class article about a short war close to the North Pole. But for Sweden this was the last major war, and a shocking experience, as Russia grabbed the eastern half of the Swedish kingdom and formed the Grand Duchy of Finland. For Finland it was the roots of national independence, with the 19th century movement leading up to breaking away from Russia in 1917. It all started on February 21, 1808, so this year will be a great chance to improve the related articles. I think we should try to coordinate this activity on the English, Swedish, Finnish and Russian Wikipedia. The war was short enough, that we can reenact it in real time, day by day, over the course of 2008. It should be possible to synchronize this with media attention given to the anniversary. Should we use the talk:Finnish War page for coordination? --LA2 (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

LA2, could you please check the accuracy of this edit? Thanks. - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the edit, Kulnev landed in Grisslehamn, which is near Stockholm. --MoRsE (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Romania (1944) aka Iassy-Kishinev Offensive aka Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive

Hi, guys! I'd like to draw some attention to this article, as a dispute over its name threatens to go out of hand (and into offtopic) there. The article was originally named "Battle of Romania (1944)", but after a sound proposal was renamed to "Iassy-Kishinev Offensive". Then a user renamed it to "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive" (without a discussion) citing the current names of the cities involved. A proposal (by me) to rename it to "Jassy-Kishinev Operation", which I consider the proper English name (based on the majority of English sources), was unexpectedly met with a heated debate. The main arguments of sides are as follows:

  • Support move to "Jassy-Kishinev Operation":
  1. The current name, "Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive" yields only links to Wikipedia and its mirrors in Google.
  2. Google Books provides a 41 to 0 preference for "Jassy-Kishinev Operation", 19 more use the name "Yassy-Kishinev Operation" for this highly successful Soviet operation (all links provided in the discussion).
  • Oppose the move:
  1. Iaşi and Chişinău are currently the most used names of the cities in English.
  2. These were also the official Romanian names of the cities in 1944.

Note1: As references to this operation are somewhat obscure, I would really appreciate some informed opinion from the regulars of this page.
Note2: The discussion is currently taking a heated tone, so I would like to ask anyone who decides to post there to keep cool in advance. If anyone would also like to improve the article in question - all the better!

The relevant discussion is located here. Also of note is the original renaming proposal. Thanks. --Illythr (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be also useful to read this when considering arguments--mrg3105mrg3105 10:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Glorious First of June now open

The peer review for Glorious First of June is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked

Anyone could give out an award. Wikipedia sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.148.226 (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment. We hope this made you feel better. We recommend you join the 4th Mazervian Shock Army for a short introductory period of indoctrination into the way WP:MILHIST does things. FORWARD! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden

Hi, there is a proposal to rename Bombing of Dresden in World War II to Bombing of Dresden for the sake of simplicity. If you have any interest in this, your comments would be appreciated here. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mathmatical check please

Someone with more math skills then I please check this edit and make sure that I got everything right. Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"... with a price tag of $125 million per ship, ..."
"Adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, each individual Iowa-class battleship would cost US $1,845,750,000 in 2008 dollars (Calculate Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 1665-2012). The total cost of the four completed ships of the class in 2008 dollars was $7,383,000,000, but if all six ships of the Iowa-class been completed the total cost in 2008 dollars would have been $11,074,500,000."
I'm not clear how you're getting these specific numbers. I get that $125 in 1939 is worth $1872.25 in 1980, and $125 in 1944 is worth $1478.75.
I think you've got way too much precision on these figures; I suggest '$1.8 billion' or 'nearly $2 billion' per ship would be better. Maybe a comparison to a modern carrier, or something about the fraction of GDP or the federal budget?
—WWoods (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with WWoods' comment on the need to 'rough' up the figures. Conversions across decades are always inprecise, and the consumer price index is a measure of changes in the the price of household goods, and not warships. The cost of military hardware normally grows much faster than CPI so an Iowa class BB would cost an awful lot more to build today than it did in the 1940s. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too sure the figure can be adjusted for inflation since inflation was not constant either during the period of the Second World War, or since. Usually the cost is given in the value of the FY the program was authorised. This is a substantial distortion of the actual final cost of the item (now mandated by new accounting practice from the Congress), and in no way reflects the final value of the item, in this case a battleship. Considering all the numerous modifications that were carried out even before the end of the war, never mind since, the true value of the vessel is probably known only to the US Navy auditing department (and includes cost of conservation/reactivation). For example no-one has yet put a final figure on the cost of developing the Bradley IFV, and the value of the units within the fleet today varies greatly depending on the vehicle's original unit, batch, and number of deployments. Due to this, two identical vehicles in the same unit today can have cost variations of as much as 50% and value differential of over a million dollars (US).--mrg3105mrg3105 13:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be picky, but isn't this calculation technically original research WP:NOR? A contemporaneous reference to how outraregously expensive they are, or a scholarly later analysis ought to be substituted? Viv Hamilton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a pity, but we basically can't make these numbers up with any reasonable degree of accuracy. I mean, we can say that it's of the order of a billion or three in contemporary dollars, but anything more detailed than that is a bit of a minefield - even leaving aside the majestic insanity of government accountancy, and assuming that the official "end cost" is accurate, it's very hard to get a meaningful figure out at the end when using a metric which tries to determine the value of the dollar based on a loaf of bread! (There are three or four other ways than just the Consumer Price Index - at least one of them will probably give you a value an order of magnitude higher, and it's quite possibly right...)
Far better to give the contemporary dollar figure and then a rough contemporary equivalent, rather than a calculated "adjusted figure", for anything but the simplest calculations. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that the contemporary cost of a battleship was equal to about half that of a modern supercarrier, say. (Incidentally, this makes sense - they're about half the tonnage, which to a first approximation should vary directly with cost) Shimgray | talk | 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, the inclusion of equivalent $ gives me a pain in the lumbar. It's so, I dunno, twee. Shimgray makes the good argument: leave out the $# in favor of an equivalent ship today (Iowa & Nimitz) & let anybody who cares look it up. Trekphiler (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Japanese troops serve with the German army in France?

I came across this pic which describes the soldier on the left as being Japanese. However I recall reading in Stephen Ambrose's D-Day that US forces captured some Koreans who were in the German army. IIRC, they got into the situation as follows: they were conscripted by the Japanese military and were captured by the Soviets when the USSR and Japan fought each other in 1939. They were conscripted by the Soviets, then captured by the Germans in 1941 or afterwards, then in turn conscripted into the German army and posted to Normandy. So I'm wondering if the description might be wrong and there's a stronger possibility that the man in the photo may be Korean. BrokenSphereMsg me 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The photo caption also says it was taken in Feb 1944: difficult to see how any Americans could be capturing anyone in France in Feb 44. Assuming it was post-D-Day, he might also belong to one of the Siberian races rather tahn being Korean, but I can't tell. The Land (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The DVIC will usually put the first date of the month, usually January 1, for photos which they have listed as "Exact Date Shot Unknown"; if they are sure of the date, this is usually listed in the description. The caption was also written at the time and ones like these tend to have a propaganda slant to them, so it's possible that the original writer is likely making a guess. BrokenSphereMsg me 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This soldier can only be a 'Jap' to a US soldier in 1944. He is clearly not Japanese, or even a Korean, but one of the Siberian nationalities (Sino-Tibetian ethnicity).--mrg3105mrg3105 13:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here [1] somebody posted the following about this photo:

The name of the soldier in this photo is Kyoungjong Yang who was born in Shin Euijoo, Northwestern Korea on March 3, 1920. He was conscripted to the Kwantung army in 1938 and captured by the Soviets in Nomonhan and captured again by Germans in Ukraine in the summer of 1943, maybe in the battle of Kharkov, and captured finally by Americans in Utah beach, Normandy on June 6, 1944.

He was freed from a POW camp in Britain on May, 1945 and moved and settled in America in 1947. He lived near the Northwestern Univ. in Illinois until he died on April 7, 1992. He lived as an ordinary US citizen without telling his unbelievable life story even to his two sons and one daughter.

His story was revealed by an article of ‘Weekly Korea’ on Dec. 6th, 2002, which became a big topic in the Korean society here at the time. http://search.hankooki.com/weeks/weeks_view.php?terms=%C6%F7%B7%CE&path=hankooki1%2Fwhan%2F200212%2Fw2002120614100061 510.htm

His surprising story will be told in a new movie which is now being made in the United States. The title of this movie is ‘A POW in Normandy’ and will focus on the real story of a Korean POW(Kyoungjong Yang) and a US soldier who helps him. It is said that the budget for this movie will amount to more than 40 million dollars.Bukvoed (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Auxiliary infobox for operational plans

Based on some suggestions from Mrg3105, I've created a prototype auxiliary infobox to use with named operations as {{operational plan}}. It's designed to be used either in conjunction with {{Infobox Military Conflict}} or alone.

Feedback would be very appreciated! Kirill 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good template. For the sake of consistency, i'd like to see 2 options for the outcome; failed/succeeded (with no editorializing). Any comment? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Like the template and agree with Fayssal that it would be more uniform if we had set options for "outcome". Woody (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how usable that would be with operations with more complex outcomes; fore example, for operations that have multiple objectives, if some of them were met but others were not, would that be a success or failure overall (and how would we avoid veering into original research territory on that question)? For what it's worth, the "result" field on the main infobox doesn't have a major problem with editorializing in practice, even though it's technically freeform; I can't think of any reason why this template would be fundamentally different. Kirill 17:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Good points, thinking about it, I am sure that a set of "standardised" headings would appear as they have for other infoboxes; in effect, organic growth. The OR question is a reasonable one as well, yet, given that the infobox is summarising the text anyway, it should be reinforced by the text. Woody (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No objection. My intent was to try to reduce the level of edit warring but your POV convinced me. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a great idea Kirill, and it's nicely executed. Could you expand the template to allow provision for a 300px image? - operational maps and well chosen would work well. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, done. Kirill 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated

Can someone please have a look at this and see if "stalemate" is still appropriate or not? I am just unsure. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The new version looks fine, apart from the typo (which I'll fix). --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history essays?

Seeing as we've had a number of proposed guidelines from various editors that haven't achieved the needed consensus to be part of the (enforceable) style guide, I'm wondering if it would be useful to create a page (or set of pages) within the project for essays containing editors' personal views on guidelines, best practices, terminology, etc. These wouldn't actually be binding, obviously; but I think it would be convenient to have them in one place for other editors to read, should they desire to do so.

Would this be something worthwhile to set up? Kirill 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely can't hurt, and could be useful as a reference or the creation/evolution of de facto standards. Plus, it could be useful for debates on an unrelated article (as can be seen, 75% of the WP:MilHist community think such-and-such.) Oberiko (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Took the word right out of my mouth. Yes, why not? Essays are already a part of the greater WP and this might have the added effect of being a repository for philosophical meanderings off-topic that, although worthwhile, could otherwise clutter this project page or MILHIST article talk pages. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, good enough for me; Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays is now available. Please feel free to add stuff! Kirill 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Need advice

I'm just getting started, after being frozen for awhile. Not sure why, but I can access the pages now. I would like to help with military aviation. I need to learn the rules though. Where should I start reading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMancarelli (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just left a welcome message on your talk page; that should help you find the most useful spots to start from. :-) Kirill 01:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Italian War of 1542–1546 now open

The A-Class review for Italian War of 1542–1546 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-peer review for two related articles

I started by expanding the Farewell Dossier article from some brief mentions in the CIA articles, and I actually think it's in decent shape.

Perhaps not knowing when I should leave things alone, I tried to update the rather sparse TECHINT article, both in terms of conventional "tactical" technical intelligence, but also dealing with national-level things such as the Farewell Dossier. At this point, I'm not sure that the strategic and technical work in the same article, and would like opinions. If the strategic should go somewhere else, there's no obvious place. It involves intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination, so doesn't fit neatly into the Intelligence Cycle series.

Thoughts?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hans-Joachim Marseille now open

The A-Class review for Hans-Joachim Marseille is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Polish Navy

Template:Infobox Polish Navy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I join?

Can I join you people? What should I do before I can join? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramtashaniku (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to add your name to the list of project members and then get editing. That is all you have to do! Woody (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ehm, thanx. Thanks a lot, really. 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramtashaniku (talk • contribs)

Shining Path GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message at this project's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Shining Path and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

List of campaignboxes

Out of curiosity, do people find the list of campaignboxes useful? It doesn't seem to be very well-maintained (mostly because trying to keep track of hundreds of templates by hand is quite a bother); so I'm wondering if there's actually any benefit to trying to do so, or if we could just dispense with the list and use categories and Special:Whatlinkshere instead. Kirill 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would go for categories. Perhaps build the category identifier into the campaignbox template itself; that way you will always have an up to date list. Arnoutf (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would be doable; it's possible to put a category on the base {{campaign}} such that it shows up on the templates using it, but not on the articles that include them. Kirill 02:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start using these in a few weeks, to look forward to all your template creations. Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 10:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But do you need a list, or would a category be sufficient? ;-) Kirill 10:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I think category would be enough--mrg3105mrg3105 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for United States Army now open

The A-Class review for United States Army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge of crewmembers of the B-25 "Ruptured Duck" into the Ruptured Duck (aircraft) article

Ted W. Lawson, Dean Davenport, Charles McClure, Robert Cleaver, and David Thatcher all currently exist as standalone articles and are all currently stub except for Lawson. Since these men's notability largely lies in being crewmembers on the Ruptured Duck I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to merge all of them into that article with the exception of Lawson, as he is notable as the author of Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo which was also adapted into a film starring Spencer Tracy. --BrokenSphereMsg me 04:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruptured Duck (aircraft) doesn't look very notable either. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the notability is with Lawson and it should all be merged into his article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Liberty ships by hull number articles

The List of Liberty ships by hull number articles were nominated for deletion on 8 January. Any thoughts can be expressed at the entry at AfD. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've just edited the List of Liberty ships articles to consolidate what was 22 alphabetical lists and 21 hull-number lists into just 4 sortable chunks. I hope this is received well. doncram (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Cold War now open

The A-Class review for Cold War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for United States Army Special Forces now open

The peer review for United States Army Special Forces is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible edit warring on project article

There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans#Confederate States Army. Could a few editors take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input? Thanks. Sf46 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied material in Military History articles, and quality ratings

I've been coming across Military History articles that self-advertise that they "incorporate text from" a given source. This seems like a pretty crummy practice to me, personally. It contravenes the practices that have evolved, embodied in WP:REF and WP:CITE#HOW. When material is pasted in from another source, whether or not that source is public domain, it should be sourced properly. That includes: If it is copied word-for-word, it should be in quotes or in one of the block quote formats that are available. If a student submitted a paper that included copied text without putting it in quotes and crediting the actual words written by someone else, that would be termed plagiarism, and the student would often get a failing grade for the assignment and/or the course. doncram (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I added milder comments along these lines to several articles recently, and downrated them because as I stated they included copied text; I am somewhat puzzled why Nobunaga24 has seen fit to restore their higher ratings without commenting why. These articles include: James R. Allen, Duquesne Spy Ring‎, Arnold Air Force Base‎. Specifically i feel these should fail the B-Class-1 evaluation of appropriate sourcing within WP:HIST. Is it policy here somehow to allow copied material, and give high ratings for it? doncram (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I do fully understand that Federal government webpages may be in the public domain, so copying from them is not copyright violation, per se. This is about proper referencing, avoiding the appearance of plagiarim, and working sensibly towards higher quality of the articles. Keeping track of sources by keeping quotes in quotation marks is an essential part of writing a good article. It is very painful to go back and try to refigure where an article got which supposed fact from, later, so that the article can pass higher level Good Article or FAC review. doncram (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A stub is an article that is short. James R. Allen and Arnold Air Force Base are start, not B, because they don't meet the criteria for B. The spy ring article had the checklist for B filled out already, and given that the article is not a stub, I restored it to it's previous rating. None of these however are stubs. --Nobunaga24 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay specifically shouldn't Duquesne Spy Ring fail in B-Class-1 evaluation of its sourcing. The article itself states "Much of this article can be found on FBI Web sites", and "This article incorporates text from http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/duquesne_frederick_interesting.htm Federal Bureau of Investigation: Frederick Duquesne Interesting Case Write-up" etc. To me that seems pretty crummy, the specific text should be identified and the general disclaimer should not be used. The WP:MILHIST definition of appropriate sourcing for B-class articles should not accept this. Don't get me wrong, if an article includes copied text it is better that the the disclaimer is given. But the disclaimer does indicate that the sourcing is improper. I have not analysed it, but how much of this article is simply copied? doncram (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I reverted it to its previous rating - another project gave it a B rating, and I'm giving the individual who rated it B and filled out the checklist for WPMILHIST the benefit of the doubt. Personally, since it is a long article with I think 7 footnotes, the citation criteria probably has not been met, and it should probably be start class, but I too haven't take the time to look through it. Therefore, I will trust the judgment of the original reviewer until a more substantive review has been made.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay I have performed what I consider to be a substantive review. As explained now in the Talk for the article, I note the article is mostly 33 individual profiles with photos, apparently copied including the photos, from one source that is given. I picked one at random and compared a 200+ word passage (for Paul Fehse) from the source vs. the article and find no difference. Since the material is not put in quotes or set aside in block quotes, it is not referenced properly (credit for the actual wording is not given where due). Frankly it would be better to have a short article and an external link to the interesting source. In my view it is not encyclopedic, it is not worthwhile for an article just to be a google cache of another webpage. An encyclopedia article should be an edited discussion that is briefer than its sources, and it can provide external links to those sources. But as it is, I believe that this should mean the article does not pass the B-Class-1 rating of referencing quality, so I downrated the article again (after this substantive review). Please say if you think this is not sufficient evidence of poor referencing. I am proposing, I guess, that B-Class-1 referencing quality should be redefined, if necessary, to disallow cut-and-paste jobs like this. Is that a new proposal or am I just asking for an interpretation? Sincerely, doncram (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have invested some time into editing the James R. Allen article now, both adding new information and sources, and setting aside in block quotes the copied-in text from the official U.S.A.F. biography, which was and is the bulk of this article. (By the way, I note that the official biography does not mention his superintendancy of the United States Air Force Academy included the first admission of women to the academy. Simply by the timing of his departure from that position one year later, I think it is possible he was embroiled in controversy over that, either as a supporter or an opponent, as a competent administrator or as a negligent/obstructionist one, but the official bio skates by that entirely.) I think the article, before and now, should be rated stub. The extent of wikipedia editor-written material is only stub length, before and now. Before, there was uncredited long passage pasted from that one external source; now there is essentially the same long passage pasted in but giving full credit (by block quoting). Either way, it is essentially a stub plus an external link. That is a stub, in my view. Thank you Nobunaga24 and others who have visited the 3 articles and reconsidered their ratings. Now that it is laid bare how little is in this article other than copied text, does that change any of your views? sincerely, doncram (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, Paleorthid evaluates it to be Start not Stub, at least now that I have added the New York Times obituary source and made other improvements, and he provided standards on what is a stub vs. start. It is a moot point, whether the article before my improvements should have been rated a stub or not, although I still think it was badly referenced before.
It occurred to me to check the quality of the official U.S. military bios by checking their account of officers involved in the Tailhook scandal. I find it interesting to note that the official U.S. military bio of Frank Kelso, here] neglects to mention Tailhook, while, happily, the wikipedia article Frank B. Kelso II does use several sources and describe his involvement. In my view, the official U.S. military bios are biased sources meant to reflect the military only in a positive light. Why should they do otherwise? But, I am concerned with the quality of the many articles based entirely on U.S. military bios that are included in "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government", and which all naturally belong to WP:MILHIST. doncram (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This sort of thing is a plague on articles "sourced" (i.e., copied verbatim) from DANFS. See any of the wartime USN sub articles, for instance (except the ones I've used Blair as a second source for...) It's disgusting. And the repeated complaints I made, citing the issue of plagiarism, produced the lawyerly reaction "change the template"! And how hard can it be to change the wording? This needs to be fixed. Trekphiler (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Constitution now open

The peer review for USS Constitution is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Normandy

This article has been rescoped to be just the assault phase (thought this was Operation Jupiter?) - I think this is incorrect. The actions to Sept 1944 are now in Normandy Campaign. I've added a comment at Talk:Battle of Normandy#Article Name. I'd appreciate more knowledgeable heads than mine. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force#Battle of Normandy. Kirill 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture

Douglas MacArthur at Leyte, 1944.
Douglas MacArthur at Leyte, 1944.

Has just passed FPC on Commons. Please ping me if you know of other potential candidates. I do restorations. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Matanikau Offensive now open

The A-Class review for Matanikau Offensive is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New article stub Military historiography created

Please help expand it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Added a little. Why the tenth century in particular? DurovaCharge! 19:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
10th century... because of this but i am not sure if that covers just the Islamic world. Any comments? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't bet on that. Seriously, I think it needs abit more quality sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've already changed that to 'for centuries'. Anyone interested to work on expanding the article? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Other featured picture nominations and peer reviews

Listing current military-related material:

Commons

Wikipedia

DurovaCharge! 07:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) now open

The peer review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 10:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) now open

The peer review for USS Bridgeport (AD-10) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 21:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as a heads up

I moved the Ontos to M50 Ontos to stick with the usual standard I've seen of AFV articles being titled by their designation, then name. Jtrainor (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Camargue now open

The peer review for Operation Camargue is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with Parrott Gun specs (Civil War-era)

I have compiled additional info into the Parrott rifle article, including an info chart on the various guns themselves (I used only Union models). I can't locate range, munitions, and size/weight for a few pieces, though. Any chance someone has that information handy? Thanks! --BizMgr (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Onager and Mangonel

Okay, our articles on these siege engines are very bad. It appears that the onager and mangonel are the exect same thing, yet they have two seperate articles. They don't tell the casual reader what the difference between them is, and I don't know so I can't fix them. Just what is the difference? Also, I requested some diagrams from the greenspun illustration project here. Others might find that project very useful for drawings of guns and vehicles.--Phoenix-wiki 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An onager has a sling at the end of the bar; a mangonel has a bucket. I believe that a mangonel fires with greater velocity (because the projective is expelled more violently) while an onager lobs missiles over a longer range (relying on the gravity of the fall to do the damage). Please correct me if I'm wrong: this is from memory. --ROGER DAVIES talk 22:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
They are indeed very similar. The most important difference is that the Onager is the late Roman empire siege engine; the Mangonel is the Medieval version. The Onager had a slightly different "sling basket" comared to the mangonels "bucket" but there are bound to have been other differences. Whether the Mangonel developed from Onager, or that they were redeveloped from scratch in the middle ages is an interesting issue; I don't know. Arnoutf (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I'll cleanup the articles a bit tomorrow.--Phoenix-wiki 22:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

Two new nominations (both here and Commons):

DurovaCharge! 04:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

They're all being added to WP:MHR now. :-) Kirill 04:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll list future ones there. How do you recommend we handle picture peer reviews and Commons FP nominations? DurovaCharge! 05:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We could probably create a section for picture peer reviews, if there are going to be a lot of them; we can't really shoehorn them into the normal project peer review process due to how the tagging works.
As for Commons, I don't really see them as being relevant here, any more so than military history happenings on other WMF projects would be. Kirill 05:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, a place is ready at WP:MHR#PPR. If there are any relevant images currently up, their reviews need to get transcluded there. Kirill 05:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Done, thank you. DurovaCharge! 05:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)