Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 74

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 74


Contents

Renaming top-level "operations" categories

(As background: the bulk of this comes out of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force#New category system needed for WWII eastern front articles; there is additional detail there that I won't repeat here.)

Currently, the top-level categories for military "activity" (encompassing battles, wars, operations, etc.) branch from Category:Military operations: Category:Military operations of World War II, Category:Military operations involving France, and so forth. There are at least two obvious problems with this usage:

  1. While "military operations" is used as a broad term for all military activity, there is an alternative—and perhaps more common—meaning of the term: specific named (or unnamed) operations (e.g. Operation Varsity, etc.). Using the term for the top-level categories prevents it from being used to create subsidiary categories to hold non-battle operations.
  2. More subtly, there is the question of "military" being interpreted to refer only to land forces, which has led to the creation of such categories as Category:Land, sea and air operations of World War I to cover the perceived exclusion of other branches.

I'd like to propose that we kill two birds with one stone by changing the top-level names to something that avoids both "military" and "operations". Some possibilities that come to mind:

  • Category:Activities of the armed forces
    • Category:Activities of the armed forces in World War II
    • Category:Activities of the armed forces of France
  • Category:Actions of the armed forces
    • Category:Actions of the armed forces in World War II
    • Category:Actions of the armed forces of France
  • Category:Events involving the armed forces
    • Category:Events involving the armed forces in World War II
    • Category:Events involving the armed forces of France

The net effect will be to free up "operations" for its other usage:

  • Category:Activities of the armed forces in World War II
    • Category:Campaigns of World War II
    • Category:Operations of World War II
    • Category:Battles of World War II

Any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill 07:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes!
PS. Category:Land, sea and air operations of World War I should be Category:WWI Combined Services Actions IMHO (same for WWII and earlier/later)-- mrg3105mrg3105 08:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Category:Actions of the armed forces
    • Category:Actions of the armed forces in World War II

Seems best to my mind. Activities just sounds a bit like a play group, and events implies lack of control. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]].

Had an idea, how about.
  • Category:Grand stategy of the combatants in World War II
    • Category:Campaigns of World War II
    • Category:Operations of World War II
    • Category:Battles of World War II
Opps forgot to sign, sorry [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]]
Unfortunately, that would mean we'd no longer have consistent naming between by-war and by-country categories; "Grand strategy of France" doesn't really make sense. Kirill 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
How about just Stratergy of the combatants in World War II, then Stratergy of France makes perfect sense. It is also the next level up in millitary parlence. [[Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]]
I don't think we can really file all operational activities under strategy (as many have little to do with overall strategic considerations); and "strategy" encompasses more than operational activity (e.g. doctrines, actual strategy, etc.). There may be potential for "Strategy of X" categories; but I don't see them as a suitable replacement for the current "Operations of X" ones. Kirill 21:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If we are talking military activity above the level of campaign then strategy is exactly what we are talking about. Besides does “activities of France” seem a bit vague.[[Slatersteven (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]]
It would be "Activities (actions?) of the armed forces of France" (emphasis mine); that doesn't strike me as particularly vague.
Beyond that, operations above campaign level are, indeed, strategic; but, as I said, "strategy" includes topics other than actual operations. The intent here is to find a replacement for the existing categories of planned & executed operations, not to create broader ones to cover all aspects of warfare above the campaign level. Kirill 21:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Surely the phrase activities (or actions) of the military would also would cover other non-operational procedures, Such as logistics. It strikes me that the category itself is too vague. Covering it does the whole spectrum of military activity from individual battles to wars, but not non-combatant activities. As such any new terminology should reflect the fact it refers to combat operations. Perhaps Combat strategy, or operational strategy.[[Slatersteven (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]]
Actually, the existing categories do cover non-combat activity; see Category:Non-combat military operations. The distinction is between general "activity"/"strategy" and specific "actions"/"events"/"operations". I'm not sure what the best choice of terminology would be to make that clear. (Perhaps even something like "Operational actions of X"? Or "Operational history of X"?)
The problem I see with a category named "strategy" is that it would give no indication of being limited to specific events, since the normal usage (as in, e.g. Category:Military strategy) of the term includes general and theoretical concepts (e.g. Intensified submarine warfare, People's war, Plan 1919, etc.). I don't think that removing the separation between specific event categories and general concept categories will be beneficial. Kirill 22:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think this is a good idea — they are operations, not military activities.--Phoenix-wiki 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Though I suppose my opposing of this is purely because f the way it sounds...--Phoenix-wiki 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there some other term you'd find more appropriate? Perhaps something like "Operational history of X"? That would retain the base terminology while still allowing "Operations of X" to be used further down the tree. Kirill 22:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a good look through a thesaurus now... :-)--Phoenix-wiki 22:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"Activies" or "Actions" is probably the most accurate, yeah, but it doesn't sound right, go with it anyway I suppose.--Phoenix-wiki 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I am being pedantic, but I find it useful to think of grand strategy/national policy (superset of military), strategic, operational, and multiple levels of tactical. One of the characteristics of operational art is that it includes the planning needed to make a battle happen in a place you want it to happen, just as the higher level of strategy defines your theaters and the priority given to them.
  • Grand strategic level: things happen at the level of countries or continents
  • Strategic: the level of large geographic areas or possibly sets of countries. You might speak of campaigns as the "quantum" of strategy.
  • Operational: the quantum here is a battle or closely linked series of battles (e.g., the Battle of Leyte Gulf has four quite substantial battles within it, ignoring the amphibious landings and their support
  • Tactical: it always bothered me that the term "tactics" can cover the actions of a fire team up to a division. Nevertheless, "engagement" isn't bad at this level.
Have I totally confused the original point? :-) Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you haven't but this thread is sort've...redundant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Category restructuring--Phoenix-wiki 18:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really redundant; it's just a smaller, easier-to-deal-with chunk that I think we can work through. ;-) Kirill 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Top-level category scheme brainstorming

Just to let people know, there's a page set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Category restructuring for some brainstorming regarding the top-level category scheme. It's obviously just some very rough ideas, at this point—so please don't hold your breath for a formal proposal anytime soon—but if you would like to help out with the brainstorming, please feel free to drop by that page and leave some comments. Kirill 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Crusades project

I've posted this on the Middle Ages project as well...does anyone think there would be enough interest in creating a separate crusades Project, or can the multitude of ever-increasing crusade articles be handed well enough by the general Middle Ages and Military History projects? I've been planning to create one specifically for the crusades for some time so I thought I would mention it here first. I think there are enough crusade-minded editors to keep it going. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to think that entirely separate projects on narrow topics tend to be more trouble than they're worth; but I see no problems, from our side, with creating a "Crusades task force" akin to the ones we have for other conflicts (and operating it jointly with the Middle Ages project, as we do for many other task forces).
(Really, our medieval task force should be operating jointly with the Middle Ages project anyways—regardless of whether we create another one for the Crusades specifically—but I don't think that integration has ever been very tight.) Kirill 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Military History Manual of Style amendment

It appears we have a need to amend the Military History Manual of Style:

As most of you are by now aware of, most of my FA-class edits have been to battleship articles, in particular the Iowa class battleships and material related to them. When the first Iowa class battleship, USS Missouri (BB-63), went featured some back in '05 we had a discussion on Missouri’s talk page about the use of "she" vs the use of "it" with regards to addressing the battleship. Since then this has come up Wisconsin’s talk page, Wisconsin’s FARC page, and on New Jersey’s FAC page. Most recently, it has resurfaced again on the Illinois FAC page.

The issue is whether the use of "she" to refer to a ship should be added as a guideline to the Military History Manual of Style. Those supporting the use of "she" have pointed out that she to refer to a ship has been a staple and traditional factor in various navies around the world for some time now, and point out that my FA-class article New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin all use she. Those opposing this view pointing to gender specificity as a violation of style guidelines, and argue that she is sexist in an article. I am getting tired of having this discussion with contributers every time a ship article comes through FAC. Tony1 (talk · contribs) has also pointed to "Criterion 2 (MOS, which recommends gender-neutral language without insisting)" as grounds for a shift from she to it in ship articles.

Whereas both the style guide and the MoS have been used as points against calling ships, she, and whereas our project encompasses all military related vessels in a navy I have resolved to bring this up here to see if there would be consensus within our project to ammend our project's MoS to include or exclude the use of "she" to refer to ship articles that fall within our scope. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I vaguely recall that this was discussed on one of the other Mos pages before. If anyone can find the links to old discussions, those would be helpful. WP:SHIPS should also be informed, if they haven't been already. Kirill 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
For transparency, WP:SHIPS was informed: [1] by TomStar81. -MBK004 03:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Those concerned with gender neutrality might better spend their time working on languages, such as French, Spanish, and Dalmatian, that have masculinity and femininity deeply ingrained in their very vocabulary and syntax. Ships have been "she" for a very, very long time. Lou Sander (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Different languages use different pronouns for ships. The Russian practice is to use 'he' rather than 'she' as I understand it. It is not an inherently derogatory practice to discriminate against women. Also I might point out that wikipedia is not censored. If some people find the use offensive, that does not necessarily mean that they must be in the right. Benea (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are two related MOS archive links: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she") and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 84. Maralia (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue here is more tradition vs modernity. The MoS links you provide only link to talk pages, as do the examples provided by Tom. I think what he's pushing for is some sort of formal ruling on this one way or the other so he can argue the point in a formalized setting. Of course I can not speak for Tom, but that seems to be the in between message here (or at least, the one getting). 76.211.106.178 (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? My links were a direct response to Kirill's request above. Maralia (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
And I thought we were debating the issue formally. The practice so far has been to leave the pronoun first used in an article, but we now seem to be deciding on a pronoun for every ship article written on wikipedia. It is also a bit simplistic to say it is 'tradition vs modernity'. Many modern navies use the 'traditional' method, as do leading institutions like Lloyd's of London. Benea (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have said "tradition vs political correctness", and I do consider this a formal debate on the issue. As with the links I provided, these issues have been discussed in the past, but I firmly believe we need to make this official to a greater or lesser extent (preferably greater). Amending the MoS to touch on this point would give one side or the other a greater degree of authority when dealing with discussions of this nature out on Wikipeida as a whole. I side with the traditional camp, using she and her is easier for me than using it, but I would like to see some consensus on the issue one way or the other before continuing on to other ships. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The solution should be to use the pronoun traditionally used by the operating country's navy. I've certainly never yet run into a woman in a navy using the feminine form who was offended by the usage. In fact, the use of either the feminine or the masculine term is a matter of affection. Sailors do get attached to their ships. In any case, this suggested change is consonant with MOS direction. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I also side for the traditional usage of "she" and "her". All of the reference books I own on naval history refer to ships this way, (the Russian ships as "he" and "him" as well). Having official acknowledgment in the MoS would ease issues with current and future FACs (this issue is essentially why we are having this discussion). -MBK004 05:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
However this ends I propose that we adopt two points with it into the MoS: 1) articles should not have their referenced pronouns changed explicitly to please one or two people (this added to prevent commenters at FAC/FARC/GA pages from switching the text for the sake of clearing FA?FAC?FARC), and 2) that the article in question not alternate between she/her and it, but consistantly use one or the other through the entire dialogue. Can we all agree on this? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Agreed, that explicitly is what we need in the MoS, regardless of the outcome. -MBK004 06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
For me,the issue is of formal versus informal English. Up till now, Wikipedia has claimed to use formal English, though with a few exceptions. I also have several naval references books published in the last 25 years, and they all use "it" for there descriptions of ships, except in direct quotes. Oddly enough, these books were written by British authors, and the publishing houses were located in Britain. I also purchased several of them outside of the US, where books for the British rather than just the American market are sold. If we want to use formal English, I'd prefer that. If we want to use informal English in our articles, I'm fine with that, but let's just not pretend we're being formal, and allow the use of my favorite word, ain't too. But "he vs. it" is not an American vs. British issue, so we should use one standard in all articles. Using "it" in some, but "she" in others will just lend to more confusion of the type we're trying to avoid. - BillCJ (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If I am honest, I think we should move to gender-neutral pronouns in ship articles. Given that Lloyds changed a while ago to "bring the paper into line with most other reputable international business titles." It is only a sensible move that we should follow suit. Whilst I heartily disagree with the manner that this discussion has occurred, it is a worthy topic for discussion. Whilst I will continue to use "she" in personal correspondence, if we want to remain a modern publication, then I think we have to move towards a more "gender-neutral" pronoun usage. (That is not to say that a agree one iota with some of the reasoning behind the move espoused by others.) Woody (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Woody that language is moving on and we need to reflect it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Some data on usage
Source Position
Chicago Manual of Style Ships: the neuter it or its (rather than she or her) is generally preferred.
The Times Style Guide (UK. Trad.) Ships: should generally be treated as feminine; thus she and her rather than it and its. See warships, boat, serve in
The Guardian (UK. Modern) Ships: not feminine: it ran aground, not she ran aground
Tradition national usage (though press releases are often gender-neutral) US DoD: She
UK MoD: She
Canadian Navy: She
Royal Australian Navy: She
South African Navy: She
Indian Navy: She
American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style Ships: The feminine pronoun forms she and her have been used since the Middle Ages to refer to such inanimate objects as the earth, the sea, and ships. The use in reference to ships still occurs in nautical contexts…
The Columbia Encyclopedia Ships, for example, are sometimes referred to as she.
The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea Ships were originally personified as masculine, but by the 16th century they had become feminine. In 2002 Lloyd's of London decided that all merchant ships should be described as ‘it’, though the British Ministry of Defence has confirmed that warships shall still be defined as feminine
Other languages Spanish: both
French: masculine
German: neutral
Russian: masculine
Italian: feminine


  • Comment by Tony1
    • "Tony1 (talk · contribs) has also pointed to "Criterion 2 (MOS, which recommends gender-neutral language without insisting)" as grounds for a shift from she to it in ship articles." No, I used those clauses as justification for discussing the matter at an FAC page. I made it quite clear at the FAC page that "no one can force this", so please don't misrepresent me. The recommendation rather than insistence at MOS was part of the deal struck to achieve consensus, and I want to emphasise that I respect that. However, that doesn't stop me putting the case that it's high time for the language of WP's articles on ships and planes to be modernised. Please see my full argument, including explanations of what many people regard as undesirable sexist female references to ships, at the FAC page.
    • To be fair, I appreciate that the usage over many decades may come to be natural for professional sailors, who might even use the female pronoun to refer to ships with a degree of affection; the usage is even in the literature of English. But that doesn't insulate us from modern pressures on the language to adapt to the significantly enhanced role of women in anglophone culture, and many others. There are enough people around—and I count myself among them—who firmly believe the usage is sexist and undesirable. Please note that the How-to guide MOS links to on gender-neutral language starts out by stating "Gender-neutral language avoids constructions that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes. Gender-neutral language does not inherently convey a particular viewpoint, political agenda or ideal." [My italics]
    • "Those concerned with gender neutrality might better spend their time working on languages, such as French, Spanish, and Dalmatian, that have masculinity and femininity deeply ingrained in their very vocabulary and syntax." That's a point worth raising: when the grammar of a language (never the syntax, by the way) is suffused with gender, it is usually applied arbitrarily (the German word for young woman, for example, is neuter; decidedly feminine things can be masculine and vice versa). English grammar stands out among European languages as not classifying nouns in terms of gender; thus, when a gender pronoun is used, there is a different layer of meaning.
    • I'll pass over the huffing and puffing about being fed up and tired of this argument. The move to promote the view that "articles should not have their referenced pronouns changed explicitly to please one or two people (this added to prevent commenters at FAC/FARC/GA pages from switching the text for the sake of clearing FA?FAC?FARC)" seems to be very POV, and suggests a basic misunderstanding of this issues and the review process. I'm unsure what "switching text" means. I ask you all to take the matter seriously. Tony (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The above listing of style guides is sufficient to show that even the prescribers of English are divided. That should be sufficient to dismiss this; Wikipedia is not a locus standi for language reform. I deeply regret, and strongly oppose, the efforts to make it one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regards the Lloyd's move to gender neutral pronouns, that err never actually happened. It was proposed only and later rejected. See here. As for the reason - "...we are the voice of the shipping industry and follow industry practice". I can't see a justification for the claim that "language is moving on", only that some people want to do it one way, and others another. The industry practice is for the feminine pronoun, many (though I agree, not all) scholarly works follow this. Wikipedia follows accepted usage, it does not try to define it. You can argue for changing the guideline on two grounds:
1. The use of the feminine pronoun is sexist and therefore offensive to women.
2. The use of the feminine pronoun is outdated and no longer observed.
I would say that 2) is certainly not true, and can find little evidence for 1). Benea (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Benea, check the dates of the two articles. The Lloyds press release was from 2002, whereas the BBC link is from 1998. Things do seem to have moved on in that sense. The Lloyds article says that "most other reputable business organisations" have moved to a more gender-neutral system. Woody (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right, I apologise. But interesting that this sort of proposal has been rejected before. But I stand by the point that this is not a clear cut case of the advance of language and the discarding of hidebound tradition. The world's navies and most scholarly works use the feminine. We should not be attempting to define a standard usage for the language, we should be following it. The argument that the feminine is at least as common, if not more so in the World's shipping today means that it is not simply a case of declaring that 'modern usage indicates neuter'. Going back to point two, there is no evidence that the feminine pronoun is outdated and no longer observed. Benea (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Easy mistake to make, don't worry. I agree that it is very hard to calculate with point two and am ambivalent about point one to be honest. There is no way of accurately quantifying the percentages of people still using feminine pronouns. I agree that it isn't outdated, indeed, I still use them and no doubt will for a long time. (That is not to say that I am not outdated). Most of the world's navies use the feminine form from personal experience, though I think independant scholarly works are moving towards neutral ones. I don't think we should concentrate on what is common in the shipping world, more what other publishing organisations/scholarly organisations are using. Woody (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It was the fact there were two such proposals that threw me. I also agree with you that the scholarly works are what we should be considering. Having a quick glance over my collection, books like Lavery's 'Ship of the Line' and Westwoods 'Fighting ships of World War Two' use the feminine, as do recent publications like Massie's 'Castles of Steel', Rossiter's 'Ark Royal' and Willis's 'Fighting ships, 1750 -1850', the latter two both being published just last year. I just can't see compelling evidence that point 2 is proven, in fact it seems to more disproven. Benea (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but are they independant? Or are they written by those with a systemic bias towards including the feminine pronoun? If you read books written by ex-servicemen like Woodward, Cunningham et al then you will have the feminine pronoun in use. Yet, which publications etc are free from systemic bias; answer, very few. In that vein, I think it will be very hard to argue that point either way. Woody (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I think we would be on very dodgy ground if we start accusing some authors of a biased background, whilst declaring others free from any bias. Rossiter and Willis don't have military backgrounds for example but who knows what their upbringings were like. What it comes down is for wikipedia to follow the conventions in use by the scholarly works it reports on and the sources it takes its evidence from. If these seem to be split, as indeed they are in this case, then we should follow the convention in greatest use. I rather think that is the black and white of the issue, rather than arguments over tradition and modernity. Modernity is not inherently the right way to go if it is not the most common use in the literature. Perhaps one day in the future, there will be a much wider shift to the neuter, in which case wikipedia should follow this. But this is not the case at the moment, and wikipedia would be wrong to anticipate that. As this is a timeless encyclopedia, this issue can be returned to a later date when it seems appropriate. Benea (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • From the table: "[Navy usage lists by country] (though press releases are often gender-neutral)". Indeed. Show me one navy press release in the past five years from an anglophone country that calls ships women. I'd be gobsmacked if an Australian one did, despite the previous reactionary government: it's safer for politicians of any political colour not to risk alienating the punters. Why should WP take such risks? Tony (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and WP, as often, has the choice of embracing such unthinking male-exclusive usage or adopting the modern practice of inclusive, neutral language. My response to these examples is: so what? WHo ever thought these weren't boys' clubs—self-satisfied and ultra-conservative at that. Tony (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Two press releases at random from the BBC - "Liverpool City Council said it was confident everything would be ready to receive the QEII on her final cruise, just five days after the start of the race." and "Operating as a commando carrier, she can now carry as many as 400 troops...". From the Royal Australian Navy's website - "HMAS Maryborough made her first visit to Sydney on December 12...", while the Royal Navy has "HMS Kent will kick off the weekend’s proceedings on Friday when she hosts a reception on board for around 120 guests..." and the Canadians weigh in with "Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship Fredericton found herself operating off the coast of Africa last May...". All within the last five years, some within the last five months. Benea (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't count, Benea, because you found more than one press relase. Also, the articles called the ships "ships", not "women", so we'll have to keep looking! :) - BillCJ (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That did occur to me, but once I started there were so many I had trouble picking just those. I thought we tended to refer to ships as ships too, though if anyone can find an article where we make that mistake I'll happily correct it. Nelson with his telescope to his eye, "I see no women" quoth he. Well of course not, they're all back in blighty. Benea (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony1, you noted earlier that you had some issues with the proposal "articles should not have their referenced pronouns changed explicitly to please one or two people (this added to prevent commenters at FAC/FARC/GA pages from switching the text for the sake of clearing FA?FAC?FARC)". Allow me put this suggestion into context: back when USS Wisconsin (BB-64) was undergoing a Featured Article review you had objected to the use of she, and after my not changing the instatnces of "she" and "her" in the article, made multiple edits to remove the two pronouns [2], shortly after which I went and put them all back in [3]. That sort of thing leads to edit wars, and hence the proposal. I may not have worded this correctly to convey that point though, if this was the cause of the confusion I apologize. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment by Askari Mark

Re: "Gender-neutral language avoids constructions that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes. Gender-neutral language does not inherently convey a particular viewpoint, political agenda or ideal." I’m well aware that some readers may choose to so interpret innocently intended usage of gender-specific language; I’m also aware that there are some people who are offended by the use of any gender-specific pronouns or possessives at all. Just how few do these “some” need to be that we still need to accommodate their reluctance to assume good faith? As one of the “middle ground” editors who helped establish the compromise, I think the above quote from MOS needs some context. The first sentence above is simply an explanation of what the (recommended, but non-mandatory) use of gender-neutral language offers; it is not an endorsement to use it to – utterly and without fail – avoid discomfiting those readers who choose to make that interpretation (or misinterpretation, as the case may be). Indeed, the second sentence specifically asserts that editors need not adopt gender-neutral language just to advance some editors’ desired “viewpoint, political agenda or ideal”; neither, where it is employed, is it to be taken as such promotion nor an endorsement by Wikipedia. Fundamentally, the compromise is grounded in the principle to “assume good faith – by all sides.” While there is nothing at all wrong with encouraging the use of gender-neutral language, it should not be advocated to the point where it begins to produce disruption. After all, we’re all gentle- er, persons here. (Besides, it’s not like anyone really considers a ship or airplane to be a “sex object” in the most objectionable sense.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Are you being a grumpy, inflexible old man? Perhaps I'm reading too much into your posting, but it seems that you're reading a lot into the situation without evidence. Lots of assumptions. Tony (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think I’m being a “grumpy, inflexible old man”, then, yes, you are reading too much into it. What I am pointing out is how easy for people of one POV to assume they have no POV, so others must conform to theirs. (The presumption that GNL is “the modern way” and that resistance to it is nothing but sexism is one case in point.) The problem most people have with GNL is that it is prejudiced toward a prima facie negative assumption of the speaker’s or writer’s intentions and biases; it obliges the author of the comment to presume that non-gender-neutral language will be taken in the most negative light, regardless of the author’s intent (whether obvious or not) – but without the requiring the least presumption of “good faith” from the prospective “offendee”. Making the presumption that the potential “offendee” will most often take offense where none is intended also displays a rather strong paternalistic presumption of the potential offendee’s inability to make that decision for themselves (a point which I remember one of our female editors quite vividly taking you and other GNL crusaders to task over).
I certainly don’t feel I’m the one reading too much into this since the whole issue has a long history, as a cursory review of the relevant MOS- and FA-related talk pages would show. The MOS suggests editors consider using GNL; it is not a requirement, and should not be imposed – at FA or anywhere else – least of all where there is obviously no sexist intent, such as in the traditional usage for ships and aircraft, since the potential “victim” is missing … unless, of course, you can find reliable evidence that these craft themselves are personally offended by it. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


I had a look through some of the books I had about naval warfare a while back and came up with User:The_Land/Ship_pronouns - which suggests the balance in the sources we will use for warship articles is for "she". I suggest our guideline should be that either 'she; or 'it' is acceptable for a ship. In general, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a social project. We describe, rather than change. This principle should be followed when chosing which pronouns are used to refer to ships. The Land (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly indifferent; however, I do agree with "The Land". Is it really the responsibility of Wikipedia to impose judgement on "real-world" customs and traditions? That is how it will appear to some, and to me it appears inconsistent with WP:NOT. Perhaps there should be a conscious effort to minimise pronoun usage? Emphasise the ship's name and refer to it (ahem ;-) as "the ship" or "the vessel", etc. Of course that could degrade the quality of the article, increasing repetition and disrupting fluidity. For the purpose of complete disclosure, I wrote a multitude of ship articles in my earliest days here (and quite possibly lingered into early 2005!) because I found the innumerable red links to be rather alarming ;-) I just conformed, in my blissful period of inexperience, to what was nominally preferred by, for example, the Royal Navy's website. SoLando (Talk) 13:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment by Viv Hamilton

As a WP:SHIPS as well as WP:MARITIME contributor, I strongly support staying with the existing position. We should not impose a standard GNL language on ship articles. The only justification for such imposition would be if there were a clear consensus in the 'real world' - and as other editors have shown, there isn't. As a career woman (professional engineer, just in case you thought I'd had a sheltered life away from men!), I think you have to have a very strong POV, to see the use of female pronouns for ships and boats as being in any way prejudicial to women, or part of a sexual fantasy by men, and it certainly isn't a mid-twentieth century orthoxy, or restricted to warships. My own historical research, which is often with smaller fishing and trade vessels, show that the female pronouns go back as far as you can find written accounts of such boats. It is just a socio-linguistic oddity of the English language that this is one place where we use the feminine rather than neuter. The English language has all sorts of other linguistic anomalies; why get het up about this one? Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Could it be a safe bet to classify this as agreeing to disagree? It is clear that there is a split IRL, as much as there is here on Wikipedia. There are a number of publications that use the female form, as there are a number of publications that use the gender-neutral form. I agree with Viv Hamilton that is just a socio-linguistic oddity that we cannot correct. It would be very hard to justify rigorously enforcing gender-neutral pronouns across the ship articles on Wikipedia, given the split amongst academics, scholars and publications beyond the confines of Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest simply following the lead of the MoS in that case ("When either of two styles is acceptable..."). So we could simply have something like this:
Ships may be referred to either using female pronouns ("she", "her") or genderless pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so.
This doesn't really solve Tom's problem—that we don't have a house style—but I suspect that we're not going to come up with one anyways, regardless. Kirill 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
So, any other opinions on the matter? Kirill 10:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree on both points, I think your text is good and the most realistic option. I really doubt we could ever come up with a house style as opinion is so evenly polarised. Woody (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Just my 2cents? Do it however you're comfortable, & tell anybody who beefs to see this debate. (Me, I'm using "she", & I'm not ex-Navy...) Trekphiler (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That is what the statement above says, just in a slightly more tactful way! ;) Woody (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It works for me. The important thing is that this has some weight behind it (hence the addition to the MoS). TomStar81 (Talk) 00:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the above at WP:MILMOS#Pronouns. Kirill 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Military of East Timor now open

The peer review for Military of East Timor is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for United States Army now open

The peer review for United States Army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

MBK004's administrator candidacy

A member of the project, MBK004, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Other project members who have worked with him and have an opinion of the candidate's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Open FLs urgently need comments

Hi, can I just give a farily large poke towards the outstanding featured list candidacies. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross recipients has been up for almost two weeks with no comments and the same for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of battle at the Glorious First of June. Could I ask anyone with spare time to comment on these lists. Thanks. Woody (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) now open

The peer review for 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A small capital idea.

As I understand it, the MOS doesn't endorse use of small caps when referring to operational codenames (such as DYNAMO), & I've seen some (minor) complaints & a revert or two on it. Personally, I prefer them, as distinguishing them from common usage; they are codenames, after all, & other technical terms get special attention. Comment? Trekphiler (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from the project main page with consent of the original poster. Narson (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
They may be codenames, but for the sake of consistency and simplicity, I think it's best that they be represented in normal (title-case) lettering. I think one will find that a significant number of references to these operations, from newspapers to academic sources, to just about everything outside of formal official military/government sources, will quite frequently (if not most often) use normal title case in writing about these things. Another concern which arises is the question of how different countries/militaries tend to deal with such things in their formal documents. The US military might use all caps, but do Australia, the UK, and Canada? Does Japan? Does Israel or South Africa or Guatemala? I apologize to make it seem as though I should be so fervently against what is essentially not that big of a deal, but in any case, there happens to have been a brief discussion about the possible use of small caps over at WP:MOS-JA (in this case, to distinguish surnames in East Asian name order). Some others' thoughts on the matter, involving formatting and the appearance of the font in different browsers etc can be seen there. LordAmeth (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a personal preference for me, not an issue. If it gets reverted, I'm not gonna change it. (Not now, anyhow.) Trekphiler (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we have German code names in Gothic font? So pretty :O) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Y'know what I'd really like? Every force in a different font, so you'd never have to guess who's who! =p Trekphiler (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A fine idea! Perhaps linked to a suitable sound file? :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Could use an Enigma keyboard for German articles. BTW, I understand that Linux is more case-sensitive than Windows, so would there be issues here? Folks at 137 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the more interesting features of the US National Cryptologic Museum is the Enigma you can actually operate. I suppose it's not surprising that close up, it looks...like a 1930ish, fairly cheap manual typewriter, and feels rather clunky. By comparison, there's a US (and UK equivalent) SIGABA in display case, which unfortunately can't be touched. That machine isn't just a literal black box--it's obvious precision machinery that, opposed to the German machine, looks more like a "body by Porsche". Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that is a museum! Trekphiler (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Sound files? I like it. But who'd do the voices? I nominate Edward Fox for Horrocks, Maximillian Schell for Rommel, John Cleese for Montgomery, Helen Mirren (on second thought, Jennifer Tilly 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)) for Patton (he had a hi, squeaky voice, not at all like George C. Scott, sorry), & Peter O'Toole (in the character of Alan Swann) for Churchill and (in the character of Eli Cross) for Hitler. (Yes, I'm an avowed O'Toole fan.)
"Could use an Enigma keyboard" Except then you'd have to arrange a day code when signing in. (Style section? Keynumber 4958?)
"would there be issues here?" You're taking this way to seriously. Trekphiler (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland FAR

Battle of Jutland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Woody (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

B-class assessment procedure?

I am not clear on how do we approve a B class for the article. I've recently finished expanding Battle of Kostiuchnówka, and I tagged it as B-class, but I'd like another editor to review if it indeed fills the necessary criteria. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think it is B as well. Good work. Woody (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there are quite a few other unassessed B-class articles out there. Do we have a place to submit them for review? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment for instructions on getting these assessments. HTH. Carre (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a link : WP:MHA#Requests for assessment --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rare maps not fair use?

For the above article (Battle of Kostiuchnówka) I have scanned, translated and uploaded a map (Image:Map of battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916.jpg). As far as I know, there is no online map showing that battle. If there are other printed maps of it, I am not aware of them (I'd expect there are two or three in some Polish publications). In any case, I would like to disagree with the map deletion as "easily repleacable". To replace it, one has to find a Polish source with a map, and those are not common (dare you to prove me wrong). My argument for keeping it under fair use was that even if will exists to create a free map based on fair use, it is extremely unlikely there will be anybody out there who has both the will and ability to create a map and access to one of the few Polish publications with it. Hence we should keep the fair use map until a free version can be created. Would you say that this is a valid argument for undeletion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S. a published map that old would be in the public domain. Poland's copyright law still protects that map? -- SEWilco (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
A map that 'old' itself would be public domain. On the other hand a map drawn in (say) 1999 of this battle would not be (cf maps of the ancient world in modern publications are not necessarily public domain). Arnoutf (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The map in question has been drawn recently (2006 or 2007). So no, it is not in PD - although it is in a relatively rare newspaper supplement, which I doubt would be available in most libraries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of USS Illinois (BB-65)

An article that you have been involved in editing, USS Illinois (BB-65), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65). Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Military Conflict Infobox terminology & POV-pushing

There has been a heated debate going on on Talk:Iran-Iraq War that is being driven by the use of the word “Combatants” in the Military Conflict Infobox. Iranian-based editors want to use this to add the United States as a main participant (on the Iraqi side), while most everyone else takes the term to mean “Belligerents”. (This would be per the definition in international law, which defines “combatant” as the individual fighters.) I got involved in response to an RfC, but it no longer appears that this will be settled by such a process. Since it’s “our” infobox, I think we need to clarify just what is indeed to be captured in this part of the infobox: the primary belligerents or any and all participants. If it’s the former, I suggest we replace the term “Combatants” with “Belligerents” or “Main Participants” or something similar (although “Main Participants seems to be begging for more of the same). I’ll be posting a link to this topic on the infobox’s talk page, but I think the issue deserves wider discussion than is likely to happen there. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally fine with "Belligerents". Kirill 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned it over there, but I agree completely that customary international law reserves "belligerent" for national, and at least group, actors. Your interpretation of "combatant" also seems consistent with the Geneva Convention usage.
More and more, conflicts tend to be multipolar rather than bipolar. How many columns would be needed to identify the assorted belligerents in contemporary Iraq or Somalia? Even WWII isn't straightforward, given Italy started as a member of the Tripartite Pact, but wound up affiliated with the Allies. Most discussions of the "Axis" deal with the three original Pact members, but where do the late joiners go? Does Vlasov's army fit somewhere?
Ironically, I'd have little problem with the US and Iran being listed as belligerents in an article about US-Iran conflict, which happened to occupy some of the same time period as the Iran-Iraq War. Even there, it gets sticky -- was Kuwait, in agreeing to reflag tankers, a participant? CAPT Rogers of the Vincennes showed what the lawyers call "depraved indifference to human life", but what is the release of drifting sea mines? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Belligenernt is a better term since insurgents (partisans and resistance groups) were not considered combatants by Germany during Second World War unless they wore a uniform--mrg3105mrg3105 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Howard’s points, and his suggestion about exploring the US and Iran as co-belligerents in an article about US-Iran conflict is a good one. That would be an over-arching, probably summary-style article that would offer some enduring context for the issues between them. My own suggestion was to make the Tanker War a separate article with the US, Iran and Iraq all properly listed as belligerents; while it came about because of the Iran-Iraq War, it was of a different nature and progressed for the most part as a separate cat-and-mouse activity that was generally independent of the tempo on the battlefield. In any case, let’s see what consensus develops over the weekend regarding “Belligerents” vs. “Combatants” as the proper term for this entry in the infobox. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
While I'd have to think about things that don't fit, and I recognize that some countries have differing views about what waters they control, Freedom of Navigation has some aspects of overarching view. That article seems to assume it is purely a US concept, which I question -- but would appreciate views from other countries.
That even brings up a broader context: actions against resources in the UN-recognized Exclusive Economic Zone, be they cod wars, salmon wars, tuna wars, or seabed exploitation. If a fisheries monitoring vessel or aircraft of Country A challenges a vessel of Country B in A's EEZ, is there belligerency? What if the monitor fires a burst across the B vessel bow, or boards it?
"Blockades" are acts of war, but both sides in the Cuban Missile Crisis were willing to accept the convenient concept of a "quarantine". Thinking retrospectively, the theoreticians that thought tactical nuclear warfare at sea was the only form that might not escalate did have some insights. Were there no land action between Iran and Iraq, there might well be less certainty about what happened in the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Sidra. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
"Combatant", to my mind, isn't a GenCon issue, it's a linguistic issue; I've never heard a nation called a "combatant", always "belligerent". Trekphiler (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, as there haven't been any objections or other suggestions, I've changed the label on that field to "Belligerents". Further comments are, as always, entirely welcome. Kirill 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone doesn't know, one of the people who believes the U.S. should be mentioned as a combatant [4] already created a separate article called U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. I don't see the point of adding U.S a combatant or belligerent, coz it's just a name, I think just having their article is far more suitable as it actually contains facts about events that happened. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This may not be the place to say anything definitive about it, but that title is still problematic, in that it

(1) implies cobelligerency between Iraq and the US, and (2) makes the US completely the aggressor, when there were problematic actions on both sides. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured pictures

Image:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg and Image:Waldenburg1945edit.jpg passed FPC today. There's also a new portrait at Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Admiral Farragut - perhaps my most ambitious restoration so far. Feedback welcomed. DurovaCharge! 03:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

All already noted in the appropriate places (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Gallery, among others); we coordinators aren't entirely useless! ;-) Kirill 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :) DurovaCharge! 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt now open

The A-Class review for 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 05:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New Task Forces needed

Hi, I have a few suggestions for observations I had when coming across articles during the Tag & Assess Drive:

1. Roman & Ancient Greece Task Forces - There is a need for Task forces for Roman and Ancient Greek civilizations. Considering their scope and Tremendous importance in the history of warfare and technology, I think that is needed. Unfortunately, simply having a period task force does not, in my opinion, make it suitable. Considering the number of editors who are involved in editing articles related to these civilizations, its almost essential to have such a task force. The problem is compounded by the fact that the ancient roman civilization was not limited to one single country of italy, but was a pan-european empire. Second, there isn't a greek task force. I suggest that a "Rome and Ancient Greece task force" could be created.

2. South Asian task force - Right now, there is only the Indian task force. Thats not really enough for such a militarily active region, considering that there are quite a few other countries around. Perhaps a south asia task force could be created to integrate all these countries together. Theres already the Chinese and South-east asian task forces that cover the countries to the north and east, and the middle east task force that covers the west.

3. Iranian/Persian task Force - Seems funny that Iran, with its own deep history, should be clubbed into the Middle Eastern Task force, especially considering their very different cultures and history. If editors are interested, coordinators could think of creating an Iranian task force.

4. Task force scope explanations need to be expanded - In some cases, there is absolutely no explanation for the scope of the task force. This is important, especially in the case of obscure and non-obvious task forces like historiography. Examples would really help. Plus, if a list of "what the task force is not" is given, it would help. This shouldn't be done to limit the scope, but rather, to clear misconceptions, where cause for confusion might exist.

5. Battles - Considering the tactics and strategies being important in battles, would it be acceptable to include them into the military science task force? The reason I'm asking is because the battle article pages can be drastically improved by getting them into a common format and page organization, and by adding information about the tactics. For eg, see the Battle of the Hydaspes River page.

Thanks for the space. I eagerly await your comments and suggestions. Cheers. Sniperz11talk|edits 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I could buy #2, but not 1 or 3. My hand is tired, so I'll more later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It'd be easier to simply redefine the scope to Indian subcontinent. Without trying to be rude, most of the FAs on WP:PAK and WP:BANGLADESH were written by Indians anyway, so I doubt it will have any labour force implications....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • We could do that, I suppose, provided nobody screams too loudly. Kirill 13:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. I don't really see how this would be functionally different from the Classical warfare task force; that one is essentially an Ancient Greece + Rome group already.
  2. See Blnguyen's comment above; but I'm not convinced there are any editors interested in, say, Pakistani military history to work with in any case.
  3. Possible, depending on interest, I think.
  4. We can do that as needed.
  5. As I've said before, I don't see the point in trying to have a specific task force for battles, since they're so pervasive that any discussion concerning them is probably appropriate for the project as a whole. In any case, putting them under military science is a bad idea; we could theoretically put almost everything under that task force, but it would just make it useless. Better to keep it focused on the broad conceptual topics, to give editors interested in those a place to work.
Kirill 13:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Does current "Indian" task force scope include Ceylon/Sri Lanka? Or does it fall into a gap? I added the tag to a Sri Lankan article and it was removed - was I wrong? The scope says "south asian", but .... Folks at 137 (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
As defined, it includes pre-independence Ceylon, but not independent Ceylon/Sri Lanka. Kirill 20:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps some scope definition based on the Indian subcontinent rather than South Asia would make things a bit easier to understand, incidentally.
I'm willing to defer to the editors active in this area, though; if they feel the task force would work better if it were somehow rescoped or renamed, we can probably go along with that. Kirill 20:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reflist

I'm using IE 7 but when using the reflist(x) function for notes, it doesn't seem to work; I simply get a long single column of notes. It does work, however, when I switch to Firefox. Is this problem unique to me only? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.254.235 (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In bried, no it isn't just you. Existing versions of IE don't understand the coding for multiple columns. See template:reflist. David Underdown (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah! thanks. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Krulak Mendenhall mission now open

The A-Class review for Krulak Mendenhall mission is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Question of scope

Am I correct in thinking that all rockets and missiles under the scope of this project? And they currently fall under the Military technology and engineering task force? There is an inactive project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and I'm wondering if there is enough interest here to have that project re-done as a WPAVIATION/WPMILHIST project task force, just like the Military aviation task force. Perhaps the Rocketry task force? To take a sampling of articles that link to {{Infobox_Missile}}, V-2 rocket and AGM-65 Maverick are currently tagged under the Military history project (just like (B-17 Flying Fortress). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Missiles (as opposed to cargo or manned rockets) are under the Weaponry task force, no? I'm not sure rocketry as a whole is really in-scope for us; something like the Saturn V doesn't really have much of a military significance. Kirill 18:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with F-4 Phantom II

Regarding Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II, do ya'll have an aircraft working group who can help evaluate the reliability of these sources? WikiProject Aircraft is involved, but I'm confused at why MilHist isn't on board, and need help with these sources. I'm concerned that most of the article may be cited to non-reliable sources; it would be helpful to hear from MilHist on the reliability of these sources.

Questionable sources found so far in F-4 Phantom II‎.

Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The link for Baugher website is wrong it should be http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/ it is often used for a source because it is a respected site for a large amount of information on united states military aircraftr serials and individual aircraft histories. MilborneOne (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a relief, since a huge portion of the article is cited to Baugher. I see you started correcting the refs; I'll finish up now. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force is what you want by the way. :) Woody (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Woody; should I crosspost this there now, or would that be overkill? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would recommend crossposting it. The more the merrier! Woody (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Woody (done); I think that's all I can do on that article for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Inherited military history

Do armed forces of successor states inherit histories of the armed forces of the predecessor states? For example, did the armed forces of the Republic of Turkey inherit the history of the units of the Ottoman Empire? --mrg3105mrg3105 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends of the level of links between them. Check the history of 75 Squadron RNZAF; squadron number gifted from the RAF to the RNZAF after World War II, with the explicit proviso that there shall never again be a 75 Squadron RAF. Does the RNZAF throw away 75's RAF service? No. On the issue which actually raised this, I believe Ceriy is correct - these Ukrainian formations and units have identifiable historical ties to the Soviet units which ended up on Ukrainian territory in 1990-1, and failing a separate page for the Soviet era unit existing, it's quite proper to have the Soviet history attached to the current Ukrainian unit's historical page. Do we have separate pages for the Soviet Union's 2nd Guards Taman MRD and the current formation, which serves within the Russian Ground Forces? No. They're the same formation, and you'll find everything at 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's really not so simple. I've seen a couple of articles where the history of a USN squadron is continued, when USN doesn't do that: a squadron disestablished is gone. Something should be done (tho, from the articles I've seen, you'd end up creating a bunch of stubs...) Trekphiler (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably OT, but I'm reminded of some countries, that, until recently, respected tradition. In T.R. Fehrenbach's This Kind of War, which many consider the definitive military history of the Korean War (and thoroughly readable), he speaks of the Battle of Gloster Hill, where the Gloucestershire Regiment made something of a last stand, with some troops breaking out. While they first took friendly fire from US armor, as soon as they were recognized, the tankers did everything they could for them. Fehrenbach says that every year, a letter of thanks, on the anniversary of the battle, goes to the Pentagon, addressed to the tank battalion -- which no longer exists.
In March 2005, it was announced that this regiment would merge with the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment to form the 1st Battalion, The Rifles. If their heritage isn't preserved in this merge, the remaining combat skills should be demonstrated. :-( Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
In this case the heritage certainly is preserved, The Rifles still wear the unique back (cap) badge that was originally awarded to 28th Foot, and later worn by the Glosters, battle-honours of the ancestral regiments will also be carried on into the new unit. David Underdown (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue is, do successor states claim lineage from units of previous states? The French Republic units do not claim lineage from the Royal Army. The current German units do not claim lineage from wither Wehrmacht or the Imperial Army. I don't know what the Japanese do, but it seems that they do not claim lineage from WW2 units. Indian Army does claim lineage, but only in so far as they remain within the Commonwealth. However many units that bear British-like names have no claim to lineage, such as the Guards and Grenadier regiments. Even so, after the partition of India and Pakistan all regiments were disbanded and reformed within the Indian Army (as I understand it) although the titles were retained (i.e. the Parachute Regiment). The only reason that the Russian Federation can claim lineage to the Soviet Union units is because this was stated during the disbandment of the Soviet Union at the Belovezhsk signing. However Ukraine never ratified the CIS Decree that followed (Belarus did).If one has to stick with solely British examples, then I would point tot he fact that no British regiment claims lineage from the New Model Army regiments although they were regular Army units. Suggested reading here [5]. In this case the units have to have a Royal Warrant, and swear allegiance, as do any other unit in any other Constitutionally created Armed Forces (in this case Charles II's). Every time a unit, even if not physically disbanded, swears allegiance to a new constituting governing authority, it becomes a new unit. Another recent example of this is Yugoslavia. At least this is my understanding, so I am prepared to be educated.--mrg3105mrg3105 23:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Honourable Artillery Company does trace it's lineage to pre-civil war roots, and so is counted as the oldest, but not most senior, (due to the fact it served against the Crown) regiment in the UK. David Underdown (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Updates to announcement template

Just to let everyone know: due to complaints about the effect of {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} on transclusion-heavy pages, I've changed the task force list display to render on a separate page ({{WPMILHIST Announcements/Full}}). I've also exported the display code into a separate shell, so {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} now consists only of a meta-template call with the actual lists of announcements. I expect this will be entirely unnoticeable to the majority of people here, but any comments are welcome. Kirill 04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Michael the Brave now open

The A-Class review for Michael the Brave is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Where to put "research aids" for the Project, which might be broader than a task force?

Kirill, you have permission to flog me with spaghetti if this should be on the Intelligence Task Force page, but I think it might be more generally useful.

What I'm about to suggest I start is a page that is clearly OR/personal experience, but it would be meant as a research aid for the Project (or Task Force), not a general Wikipedia article. Does anyone know the policy on such things?

My specific proposal is that I start some text mentioning obvious, and less obvious, techniques for searching, first online, for US declassified documents. I no longer live in the Washington DC area, but I can also add guidance for researching materials from the various physical archives there.

It would be excellent if anyone could suggest this for other countries. There is an occasional special case where a government tries to make as much information available as it can, when the reports are first written. I'm thinking of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which is very good on publishing studies that, in the US, would be likely to be classified when first issued by the Intelligence Community.

Another possibility is listing some of the more useful research centers, government and non-government. For example, the US mid-level staff colleges and senior-level war colleges have one or more research institutes, which publish detailed studies that often disagree with the official national policy. Many of these colleges do offer masters' degrees, with theses that sometimes are classified, but are usually online -- and again may be strong disagreements, with thorough research, with Administration policy. One of the nice things about these theses (especially) and reports is that the author may have used classified material in the preparation, but obtained permission to have an unclassified summary in the report -- or simply wrote an unclassified report while having the knowledge of the actual situation, knowledge not available to the public.

If I do this, where should it go?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MILESSAY. :-) Kirill 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Brillant idea thanks Howard. Make a note somewhere in there about The National Archives/Public Record Office at Kew, though obviously we have to be careful about OR. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I can access TNA digitised records free of charge, so I'm happy to check things out there, within reason, if people wish (though I wouldn't feel comfortable with providing copies). The catalogue, "global search" (which will also throw up references to holding in other archives), and Documents Online are probably the most useful areas. To verify British (and often Commonwealth) decorations, honours, dates of rank etc the London Gazette is useful, as is template:LondonGazette for formatting references. Permission to wear decorations awarded by foreign governments is also gazetted. Bear in mind that due to the OCR process used to digitse pre 2001ish issues, the indexing isn't entirely reliable. David Underdown (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Along the same lines, the Australian War Memorial is currently digitilising its massive holdings of Australian Army war diaries and placing them online at [6] While these are obviously primary sources and need to be used with care (especially as they're not always accurate) they're a great resource. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeking feedback

This latest restoration could be a sensitive issue, due to the fame of the original photograph. Some British editors might be offended. So before I put this up for formal peer review please have a look: is this as inappropriate as airbrushing the crack from the Liberty Bell? I've loaded a high resolution file of the original for comparison. The Roger Fenton biography (and this New York Times article) provide background. DurovaCharge! 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is now up for peer review at Wikipedia:Picture peer review/The Valley of the Shadow of Death. All comments welcome. Woody (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I solicited a couple of opinions privately and no one gasped in horror, so I've put up both versions. DurovaCharge! 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for HMAS Melbourne (R21) now open

The peer review for HMAS Melbourne (R21) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 06:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)