Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
- Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Requests for project input
[edit]There's a discussion at Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#RfC_–_In_the_article_section_about_"Haifa",_should_the_following_paragraph_be_added? about whether specific prose attributed to Benny Morris should be added to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 07:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH talk! 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Siege of Gerona (disambiguation)
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/40px-Information.svg.png)
An editor has requested that Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.
Requested move at Talk:Russian-Livonian War (1480-1481)#Requested move 26 September 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Russian-Livonian War (1480-1481)#Requested move 26 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Help reviewing my Article on the Battle of Muddy Flat 1854.
[edit]Draft:The Battle of Muddy Flat Please reach out to me if anyone is interested. It's really cool. The United States actually participated in the war of the Taiping Rebellion and teamed up with the British and Taipings against the Qing Dynasty who hired pirate mercenaries to help them. Thanks. Historyguy1138 (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
FAR for Rudolf Vrba
[edit]I have nominated Rudolf Vrba for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)#Requested move 2 October 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)#Requested move 2 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#Requested move 27 September 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#Requested move 27 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions#Requested move 19 September 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions#Requested move 19 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:September 2024 Lebanon strikes#Requested move 1 October 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:September 2024 Lebanon strikes#Requested move 1 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 24 September 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 24 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Module:Infobox military conflict has an RfC
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Module:Infobox military conflict has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jay D. Easy (t) 17:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Request for input at Talk:World War III
[edit]I would appreciate input or suggestions at Talk:World War III#War on terror as WWIV about whether the section Extended usage of the term should mention that the War on terror is sometimes called WW IV. Sjö (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Civilian Public Service
[edit]Civilian Public Service has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I recently created a draft for Prisoners of war in World War II after I noticed that there was an article on the subject on French and German Wikipedia. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2023 Wagner Group plane crash#Requested move 15 October 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Wagner Group plane crash#Requested move 15 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Saint-Inglevert Airfield
[edit]An issue has been raised at talk:Saint-Inglevert Airfield which members of this WP may be able to resolve. Please feel free to voice your opinions. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
My rewrite edit of Wikipedia’s Bombardment of Greytown page
[edit]I have done an expansive rewrite edit of Wikipedia’s Bombardment of Greytown page on that page’s talk page.
There, I had learned that: “This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Military history: Maritime / British / European C‑class.”
I invite anyone associated with WikiProject: Military history to read my attempt to improve upon this Start-class article and to comment.
Thank you.
Will-DubDub Will-DubDub (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Add the Battle of Muddy Flat to List of Wars Involving the USA and the Taiping Rebellion Wiki?
[edit]Hi everyone so the Battle of Muddy Flat article has been published. Should we add it to the List of wars involving the United States and the Taiping Rebellion Wiki?
Please let me know your thoughts and contribute to the conversations either here or there, preferably both. If no objects to it, I will likely do it myself at some point in the near future. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I've added this to WT:MILHIST from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input, as it may generate a conversation. cc Historyguy1138. Thanks! Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I've added this to WT:MILHIST from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input, as it may generate a conversation. cc Historyguy1138. Thanks! Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Mini-drive on articles needing supporting materials
[edit]Hi all. I've been thinking recently on our backlog at Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials which currently stands at 1,337 articles. These are articles that have been assessed (either manually or by the MilHistBot) as just needing an image, infobox or similar to achieve all of the B-class criteria. I don't think it would take too much effort to clear this category if each of us does a handful. It will also help us to progress towards our top-level goal of having 15% or more of all our articles at B-class quality or above. As a trial I've listed about 100 articles from the category below, listed by our period/conflict task forces (so hopefully there will be some articles of interest to everybody). If this is successful I am happy to list more articles for another mini-drive - Dumelow (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Instructions
[edit]Look at one of the articles below and either:
- If you think it passes all of the B-class criteria and you haven't been involved in writing the article, assess it as B-class on the talk banner template
- If you think the article requires improvement against another of the B-class criteria, assess it as so on the talk banner template
- If you can improve the article to meet all of the B-class criteria (many hopefully will just need an image or infobox) and list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests for formal assessment
When you have done one of these actions strike through the article name and sign against it on the list below
Articles
[edit]- Classical
Quintus Fulvius Flaccus (consul 179 BC)failed on B1, missing citations CMD (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)- Thrasyllus
Seleucid armyfailed on B1, missing citations - Dumelow (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Magister equitumregraded as B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)- Lost Army of Cambyses
- Siege of Tbilisi (627–628)
Servius Fulvius Flaccusreassessed as a 4-sentence stub - Dumelow (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Marinus (praetorian prefect)Added infobox, might be B class now if someone could reassess. Matarisvan (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Medieval
- St Brice's Day massacre
William of Ypresinfobox and related image added, asked for assessment - Dumelow (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Military history of the Mali Empirefailed on B1, missing citations CMD (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)- Bandon (Byzantine Empire)
- Yang Chongben
Fortifications of Famagustatagged a source for improvement, b1=n, b5=y - Dumelow (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)- Thomas Harrington (died 1460)
- Manx revolt of 1275
- Early Muslim
- Tughj ibn Juff
- Turabay ibn Qaraja
- Ubayd Allah ibn Umar
- Siege of Jerez (1261)
- Al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Abid
- Fadala ibn Ubayd
- Moroccan invasion of the Songhai Empire
- Ghurid campaigns in India
- Crusades
- Anthony le Flamenc
- Massacre at Béziers
- Albert of Schwarzburg
History of the Expedition of the Emperor FrederickHas a map, looks OK to me for B-class - Dumelow (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)- William of Santo Stefano
- Matthew Orsini
- Battle at Gaza (1239)
- Henry Fitzcount
- Early Modern
George Anson's voyage around the worldB5 met, but not B1. Reassessed as start. Zawed (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)John Smith (British Army officer, born 1754)Infobox added, B class. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)- Pavliuk uprising
HM galley PigotB1=no. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)- Kingdom of Ardra
- Peñol de Cerquín
- Avranches massacre
- John Spratt Rainier
- Three Kingdoms
- Anthony Hungerford (Roundhead)
- Anthony Hungerford (Royalist)
Worcestershire in the English Civil WarAdded a couple of refs, has images, assessed as B - Dumelow (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)- Tinker Fox
- Edward Burghall
Sir John Heydonb5=y, b2=n - Dumelow (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Gilbert Gerard (Governor of Worcester)Infobox added, B class. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)- Edmund Verney (soldier)
- American Revolutionary War
Lazarus StewartAssessed as b-class. Hog Farm Talk 01:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)George Johnstone (British Army officer)Assessed as b-class. Hog Farm Talk 20:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- John Pigeon
Henry Sherburne (colonel)b1=n, missing citations - Dumelow (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Pierre Gibaultb5=y but b1=n, missing a few citations - Dumelow (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Nero Hawleyb1=n, missing a few citations - Dumelow (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)John StormDoesn't seem notable; listed at AFD. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Nicholas-Hyacinthe de BotderuThe only positive here is that it has citations. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Napoleonic
- Willem Benjamin Craan
- William Leeke
Sir William Anson, 1st BaronetThis is an article I expanded for GA in 2022 and then forgot about. It should be B now but I'll leave that for someone else to judge! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC) Agreed, and have assessed as B-class - Dumelow (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)HMS Curlew (1812)Missing citations. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Nicolas-François Roussel d'HurbalHad an infobox already and otherwise looks good, so assessed as B class. Added an ancillary image - Dumelow (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)- Hired armed lugger Nile
Prince Friedrich Franz Xaver of Hohenzollern-Hechingenb1=n, missing citations - Dumelow (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)- James Hamilton Stanhope
- American Civil War
Isaac Searsb1=no. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)- Peace Conference of 1861
Shaler BatteryStub with no inline citations; reassessed b1, b2, and b3. Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Hines' Raid
Pleasant J. PhilipsReassessed as b-class. Hog Farm Talk 00:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)- Shelton Laurel massacre
- Joseph N. G. Whistler
Texas Marine Departmentstructure and comprehensiveness issues; reassessed. Hog Farm Talk 00:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- World War I
Eric Pooleimage and reference added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Royal Hellenic Navy in 1917Stub - Dumelow (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)William Denis Browneinfobox/images added by another editor, assessed as B. Zawed (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)- Ninoshima
- Chambeshi Monument
William Wright (Indian civil servant)Reference added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)No. 135 Squadron RAFCleaned by Keith-264 and myself. C class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Military Inter-Allied Commission of ControlB2=n - Dumelow (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- World War II
Nakajima Aircraft Companyassessed as C. Zawed (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Tikka Khanb1=n, already tagged as needing improvements to citations - Dumelow (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Irish Republican Army–Abwehr collaborationB1=n lacks citations - Dumelow (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force
George Unwinreassessed as start for now, but will work on it to get it up to B. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Nakajima G10NC class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Oslo ReportAlready tagged for citations - Dumelow (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)- Havana Conference (1940)
- Cold War
Peter Tapsell (British politician)Removed banner, out of scope per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#cite_note-3 - Dumelow (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Vin americanii!Reassessed as B class by bot - has an image now Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Teddy GueritzAdded image to infobox - reassessed as B class by bot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Bill Young (CIA officer)Reassessed as B class by bot - has an infobox now- Sigma I-64 war game
- Neville Alexander Odartey-Wellington Needs a reference to make it to B. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Operation Paul RevereBot thought it was too short, but re-rated B. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)295th Rifle DivisionNeeds a reference to make it to B. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC) - I've assessed it as B after rescuing the ref (looks to have been lost in a paragraph split) - Dumelow (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Post-Cold War
Discussion
[edit]Should we add any of the U.S. Labor Wars (especially the Coal Wars) to the List of wars involving the United States?
[edit]List of wars involving the United States
Not sure if we should count them or not? I'm having a hard time with this one. On the one hand we could consider them as regular conflicts like the List of conflicts in the United States. Although the top of this list does not say wars, it says the US was involved in 113 military conflicts. But it does not stop short of conflicts outside the USA, because it includes Bleeding Kansas. It does seem to stop short of wars where the U.S. military is not involved, but then again the U.S. miliary could be said to include the U.S. miliary on two points. 1. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry did involve the U.S. military, and 2. it involved them as Bleeding Kansas bleed into the Civil War (pun intended).
So in like manner should we open up this list to the Coal and Labor wars where the U.S. military fought in? Here is a few key ones to consider The Coal Wars (think of the Battle of Blair Mountain), the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, the 1811 German Coast Uprising.
Many of them included the national guard at the very least, If we stop there what about Shays' Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, or Fries's Rebellion?
If we went this route, maybe we should only include the Labor Wars, Rebellions, and Slave Rebellions where the United States military fought in.
So for example we would not include Slave rebellions such as the 1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation?
Also if we do the Coal Wars should we divide them up based off of Wars involving the U.S. Military or just leave them as the Coal Wars in general and adjust the dates and casualties based on all the Coal Wars combined where the USA fought? My hunch is no since we did not do this with the Banana wars or the American Indian Wars, but its fine with me either way.
Thanks. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would say leave them out. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm could be convinced either way of doing that. But what would be the reasons for leaving them in or leaving them out, for reasons explained above.
- Tell me your thoughts please, if you will. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- For one thing, the National Guard isn't the US military per se, especially during the time period most of these incidents occurred. There's also the very basic point that these were not declared wars or conflicts. And if you're basing it off National Guard involvement (which to be clear I do not agree with), where do you draw the line? National Guards from various states have been committed in times of civil unrest or natural disasters. Do you count civil unrest? If so, to what level?
- And in at least some of these cases, the conflict didn't directly involve actual Federal troops. In some cases their arrival actually put an end to the conflict. You'd also have to include some of the railroad conflicts that occurred in the later 1800s, since some of those involved militia...the precursor to the National Guard.
- It's a slippery slope, and one I don't think we need to be messing with. Intothatdarkness 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- "For one thing, the National Guard isn't the US military per se, especially during the time period most of these incidents occurred."
- This actually is the most compelling reason I have heard. Hmmmm not sure honestly. I double checked and "In 1933, with the passage of the National Guard Mobilization Act, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States, a newly created federal reserve force."
- As I understand it the National Guard by itself refers to an individual state national when it is acting as the state military/militia while the National Guard of the United States refers to the national guard acting as Federal military or when it is referring to all state, district, and territorial guards as a whole.
- I think this is actually a convincing baseline for all future wars/conflicts.
- The parameters as they seem to historically have been are
- 1:is it "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." (this is the oxford definition of war).
- 2:Did the U.S. military actually follow it.
- In the case of the National guard I actually would say that for articles to be featured on the list as wars they would 1. the Battle/War would have to take place in 1933. 2. They would have to be Federalized and not used in a State capacity unless Federalized and/or paired with the U.S. military.
- As far "civil unrests" are concerned. I think for it to be a civil unrest or riot then the antagonist against the US military would have to not just be a riot, but an armed and organized fight or rebellion. I think we actually could define the Coal Wars and many of the Labor wars as such or at least most of them, but we cannot call them a War fought by the United States given that the National guards were not federalized.
- I would have included the Harlan County War since the the National Guard Mobilization Act was passed in 1933 and this coal war ended in 1939, but I would not because to my knowledge the Kentucky National guard were never federalized.
- "There's also the very basic point that these were not declared wars or conflicts" Eh I would not use that argument only, because then the list would literally be reduced to 5 wars, since there are actually only 5 wars that the US actually declared. The American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, WW1, and WW2. That being said you have convinced me on the former points.
- What do you guys think? Slatersteven Horse Eye's Back Intothatdarkness
- Under these guidelines I do not think we could include Shays' Rebellion or Fries's Rebellion, since only milita fought in this one. However, we could include the the Whiskey Rebellion and some slave Rebellions such as Nat Turner's Rebellion, but not the German Coast Uprising.
- Should we maybe add a note on this on the list? What do you guys think. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I remain opposed to their inclusion. You might want to do some more research on the National Guard as well. There is a distinction between National Guard and the handful of state militias that exist (both in terms of funding and other areas). National Guard units can be used/activated by states without being called into Federal service (commonly done for natural disaster relief operations) but when called into Federal service they can be sent overseas (common since World War II). Intothatdarkness 15:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- "I remain opposed to their inclusion. You might want to do some more research on the National Guard as well. There is a distinction between National Guard and the handful of state militias that exist (both in terms of funding and other areas). National Guard units can be used/activated by states without being called into Federal service (commonly done for natural disaster relief operations) but when called into Federal service they can be sent overseas (common since World War II). "
- I do not disagree with you on the National Guard point. Your point was both well illustrated and valid. I did some reviewing and the only labor war I am aware of that included U.S. troops fighting is the West Virginia coal war specifically the Battle of Blair Mountain. And as of now. That is the only one I would personally consider including.
- Though I am confused as to why you would not include the Whiskey rebellion and Nat Turner Rebellion. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I remain opposed to their inclusion. You might want to do some more research on the National Guard as well. There is a distinction between National Guard and the handful of state militias that exist (both in terms of funding and other areas). National Guard units can be used/activated by states without being called into Federal service (commonly done for natural disaster relief operations) but when called into Federal service they can be sent overseas (common since World War II). Intothatdarkness 15:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- As do I, this changies nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. Slatersteven (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, but then what are the reasons for no. Mind you I will ask the same person this if they say yes we should. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- They may be called wars, but are they more "warish" than any other violent labour dispute? Reads too American-centric. Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can you expand upon "warisah" I do not know this word. Do you mean like sort of a quasi war maybe, because it is more of a labor dispute?
- I agree with you some wars are smaller than others, but then I would ask what do we define as a war for these articles? There are several wars on here that are small in scope and this is not unique to the United States. For example look at the Anglo-Zanzibar War.
- The Oxford dictionary defines a war as "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." By this definition the Coal Wars could be included or at least the ones that involved fighting with the United States military, which actually involved several of them.
- For example the Battle of Blair Mountain, where literally tens of thousands of men fought.
- As I stated above, based off the history of this list, it seems like we are only counting wars where the United States fought in so I can see the point in not including those specific coal and labor wars, or else people would probably include American feuds Category:Feuds in the United States such as the infamous Hatfield–McCoy feud which were blood battles and wars fought between private groups not concerning the Unites States or gang wars such as the Tong Wars or Castellammarese War. Not I am not at all suggesting we add Feuds and Gang wars, I am just using them as a point of differentiation between these conflicts and wars involving the United States military including the coal wars. Unless there is another qualifier I am missing here. Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- What I mean was are these any more wars than any other violent labour dispute, so do we list all of those as wars, or just American ones? Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see a compelling reason to include any of them, regardless of national origin. Intothatdarkness 12:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- "What I mean was are these any more wars than any other violent labor dispute, so do we list all of those as wars, or just American ones?"
- If it is "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." and it can be substantiated the Nation of that government fought against them and the opposing side was fighting them then yes. But not as a demonstration or a riot. The Battle of Blair Mountain is a good example, because it was a shooting war. But as Johnbod pointed out that in these wars the National Guard were not federalized troops.
- I would still regard the coal wars as Wars, but not one in which the U.S. government fought in. It would have to be under a state's induvial list of wars if one can be made for a U.S. State.
- If in the case of England if the Peterloo Massacre was not a peaceful and the protestors actually fought against the British military in a battle then I would classify it as being a war. If it was fought between the workers of Peterloo and lets say a County militia/military then I would count it as a war too, but just not one fought by the national government if that makes sense. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you just have a different definition of war than the field of history and your fellow wikipedia editors? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just using the dictionary definition. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- A very literal interpretation, which doesn't really square with the historiography of military history or war studies in general. Most of the US cases you're listing are usually discussed either as part of labor history or in the context of misuse or overreach of the use of the US military in a domestic context. Including them in the list of wars is inappropriate. Intothatdarkness 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would not inherently disagree with your point. However no one has produced a definition as of yet. There are several wars on the list already including Bleeding Kansas, the Pig War, and Operation Ocean Shield which may or may not fit in with a standard definition of war as others have suggested.
- If a more concrete definition can be established I am all ears. But as of now there is no official stipulation about what constitutes a war on this list other than it involve US military forces. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think at this point you're starting to bludgeon the whole thing. You're the only one supporting adding the labor conflicts, and the only evidence provided is a basic dictionary definition of war. Bleeding Kansas is considered a lead-in to the Civil War by most, if not all, authorities on the subject, so it can't really be treated in isolation as you seem to suggest. And in most of the labor conflicts, the presence of the US military is more tertiary. Intothatdarkness 18:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- "You're the only one supporting adding the labor conflicts" Hmmmmm perhaps you are correct. I do believe that the majority should rule here.
- "the only evidence provided is a basic dictionary definition of war" Maybe so but I do not believe the burden of proof is on me here, as the list itself provides others examples for my point. I still think that at the very least Blair Mountain should be included.
- On Bleeding Kansas however the only time the U.S. military got involved that I am aware of was during the raid on Harpers Ferry. And although there was casualties on the U.S. military side this was tertiary compared to state militia. A lead into the Civil War does not equal a war (not including the dictionary definition).
- The Pig War directly involved the U.S. military, but there were no deaths or injuries.
- And we cannot include Operation Ocean Shield or else we would have to include military operations against Pirates in the Caribbean and Greece. The Barbary wars are an exception since of course the Barbary states were also nation states.
- But again I will concede your point, if nothing else for majority rules. Though I think I will give it a month and then I will start a new topic on the subject of defining our terms (on wars) and removing Bleeding Kansas, the Pig War, and Operation Ocean Shield and others and/or adding the Nat Turner and Whiskey Rebellions.
- (Of course not saying we will add or remove anything, I am just saying I will open the discussion).
- I am sincerely sorry if I made you or anyone else personally upset, that is not my intention. Though I would argue I have done nothing inherently wrong and the subject is worth talking about. But I think I am following the Wikipedia spirit of both being bold, and a team player by not making any major changes to the list without consulting the group as a whole. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Actually military operations in Bleeding Kansas have been studied as examples of early "peacekeeping operations," since the intent was to prevent hostilities through the presence of troops. And if anything, the list should possibly be reduced instead of expanded. Intothatdarkness 19:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- "Actually military operations in Bleeding Kansas have been studied as examples of early "peacekeeping operations," since the intent was to prevent hostilities through the presence of troops. And if anything, the list should possibly be reduced instead of expanded."
- I mean fair enough. I can see that how that could be the case. I just don't see why it's inherently on this list considering other definition of wars. Or some of the other wars here. Since other than Harpers Ferry there were no other battles.
- Can it be considered a peacekeeping operation if it is peacekeeping American citizens? (Sincere question.)
- I think you maybe your proving my point is that we should indeed have a talk about the wider parameters on the list. To either reduce it or expand it, or a bit of both and more thoroughly define our terms. Maybe Bleeding Kansas should be kept and some of the others dropped. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it can...because the main purpose of peacekeeping operations writ large is to prevent or minimize open conflict. And at the time there was precious little in terms of civilian law enforcement in either Kansas or western Missouri, and what was there was considered corrupt or biased to one degree or another. The military already had a presence in Kansas due to the Indian Wars, so it was simply a matter of adjusting the existing mission.
- Frankly, I find that list a bit of a mess (like many lists on Wikipedia), but I would lean more toward shrinking it instead of expanding it to include every incident where there might have been a US military member within ten miles. Intothatdarkness 20:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I see. I am not inherently against shrinking it or expanding, so long as the terms are clearly defined for a common basis. Does not matter so much to me if we included peacekeeping operations in that definition.
- I will include your peacekeeping operation point as a detail when I start the new topic next month. I will link you to the post so you can get an instant notification if you would like.
- "Frankly, I find that list a bit of a mess (like many lists on Wikipedia), but I would lean more toward shrinking it instead of expanding it to include every incident where there might have been a US military member within ten miles."
- We can see what the majority think on it later. If minority does not like it they can always create their own list with specific parameters. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Actually military operations in Bleeding Kansas have been studied as examples of early "peacekeeping operations," since the intent was to prevent hostilities through the presence of troops. And if anything, the list should possibly be reduced instead of expanded. Intothatdarkness 19:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think at this point you're starting to bludgeon the whole thing. You're the only one supporting adding the labor conflicts, and the only evidence provided is a basic dictionary definition of war. Bleeding Kansas is considered a lead-in to the Civil War by most, if not all, authorities on the subject, so it can't really be treated in isolation as you seem to suggest. And in most of the labor conflicts, the presence of the US military is more tertiary. Intothatdarkness 18:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- A very literal interpretation, which doesn't really square with the historiography of military history or war studies in general. Most of the US cases you're listing are usually discussed either as part of labor history or in the context of misuse or overreach of the use of the US military in a domestic context. Including them in the list of wars is inappropriate. Intothatdarkness 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just using the dictionary definition. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you just have a different definition of war than the field of history and your fellow wikipedia editors? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- What I mean was are these any more wars than any other violent labour dispute, so do we list all of those as wars, or just American ones? Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- They may be called wars, but are they more "warish" than any other violent labour dispute? Reads too American-centric. Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, but then what are the reasons for no. Mind you I will ask the same person this if they say yes we should. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- In general I would say keep it tight, if its only kind of war (coal war, timber war, cola war) I would exclude it. Just because it has war in the name doesn't mean it needs to be included. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree to an extent. Like I said to Slatersteven I definitely would not include the Tong Wars or Hatfield-McCoy feud, because they were gang wars and feuds not involving the united states military. And I would not include the Cola wars since those were just a business feud and the Timber Wars had more to do with Timber Pirates (not sure if the USA actually fought them or not. I think the U.S.S. Michigan encountered them once, but I have not studied them too closely yet.
- But unlike the Tong Wars, Hatfield-McCoy feud, and Timber Wars, the battles that were fought in them did not include the U.S. military that I am aware of. Where as many of the coal wars did.
- Perhaps if we include them at all we should only include the Coal Wars where the United States military fought? Or we should include key battles like Blair Mountain and just have it under the header as (part of the coal wars)? What do you think? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why only US ones, why not the Peterloo Massacre or the 1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike? Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting point. I mean those would not fit in the List of wars involving the United States, however I do think we could place the Peterloo Massacre in the List of wars involving the United Kingdom. Not the 1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike though, because the strike did not include a UK military presence that I am aware of, only police. Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ooooh but then again looking at Peterloo this seems like more of a peaceful demonstration then a war. If the people at Peterloo fought back against the British Military I think that would make more sense. Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- It still wouldn't be a war... These simply are not wars. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why only US ones, why not the Peterloo Massacre or the 1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike? Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. Even when there was some violence, "war" is used only as a metaphor. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm I respectfully disagree good sir. The Coal wars had a number of battles in them. For example the Battle of Matewan and the Battle of Blair Mountain especially which involved tens of thousands of men. Oxford defines a war as "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."
- That being said @Intothatdarkness made an extremely compelling reason from a different angel. In that he pointed out that during these wars none of the National Guard who fought in it were actually Federalized into the U.S. military at that time. And since this is more focused on wars fought by the U.S. military and not states as individuals that is a more compelling argument. I think we are starting to move away from that argument and now asking if we should include the Whiskey Rebellion or specific slave rebellions involving the U.S. military for example the Nat Turner Rebellion. Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neither the Battle of Matewan or the Battle of Blair Mountain are really battles... The first is a simple shootout between non-governemnt parties, and the second is more a one sided police actions that is called a battle because the pro-business forces won the larger political wrangling about them, if labor had won it would be called a massacre. Same for the "Coal war" its only a war in metaphor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully it depends on how you define a battle.
- Oxford defines a battle as "a hostile engagement between opposing forces on land or sea; a combat a fight."
- Webster defines it as "to engage in combat between individuals or armed forces : to engage in battle". " The first is a simple shootout between non-governemnt parties," A shootout is just a smaller battle. And a war does not need to include nations to be considered a war. Its just a different kind of war.
- For example the Castellammarese War was indeed a war fought by non state actors. That being said the argument does not matter as we are focusing on wars fought by the Unites States military for this list.
- "one sided police actions that is called a battle because the pro-business forces won the larger political wrangling about them, if labor had won it would be called a massacre. Same for the "Coal war" its only a war in metaphor." Eh actually it was pointed out to me that the U.S. Army not just the militia did fight in this war. And even if a war is one sided that does or is a massacre that does not mean it is not a battle. For it to be massacre by itself it would have to imply that the other side cannot fight back. Wounded Knee was indeed a massacre, but they were able to fight back.
- Not sure you could even say Blair Mountain was a massacre as the miners killed 30 company men and 4 army soldiers. One side had 10,000 and the other had 30,000, but both had machine guns. Although the Army did bring in bombers with both gas and bombs.
- A metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable", but people actually fought and died in these wars. But it seems to me that the West Virginia coal war is the only one that I know of where Federalized U.S. military troops ever fought. Maybe though only the Battle of Blair mountain should be included on the list and not the full war. Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I find your logic peculiar and remain unconvinced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I mentioned to Intothatdarkness I am willing to concede the point if nothing else, because I believe the majority should rule as this list does not belong to any one person.
- Though as I told him. I think I will give it a month and then post a new topic on adding a more thorough definition to what we consider a war for the list. That way we can give this page more structure as to what should or should not be included.
- As I think a good argument could be made that we should consider removing Bleeding Kansas, the Pig War, and Operation Ocean Shield and others and/or adding the Nat Turner and Whiskey Rebellions. I say this because it seems that in this discussion that besides the basic dictionary definition of wars, there are a few other definitions (though so far undefined) that would disqualify or qualify some of these wars/conflicts/etc.
- (Of course not saying we will add or remove anything, I am just saying I will open the discussion). I think it will be helpful moving forward. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I find your logic peculiar and remain unconvinced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Neither the Battle of Matewan or the Battle of Blair Mountain are really battles... The first is a simple shootout between non-governemnt parties, and the second is more a one sided police actions that is called a battle because the pro-business forces won the larger political wrangling about them, if labor had won it would be called a massacre. Same for the "Coal war" its only a war in metaphor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Flags in Infoboxes
[edit]I would like some confirmation of the policy on FLAGS within Infoboxes, when applied to military units.
WP:MILMOS#FLAGS states;
- In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited.
- Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative?
Template {{infobox military unit}} adds;
- country – optional – If the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign state, the name of that state.
- allegiance – optional – Used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state; can usually be omitted otherwise. In the case of National Guard or Naval Militia units, the State of origin should be indicated.
Searching for a good example, I found No. 1 Squadron RAAF, rated WP:FA, with an Infobox as clean as a whistle; no flags, no pretty ribbons, just plain text. This is not the case when it comes to many RAF and USAF units. But if I start tearing down national flags, I could end up starting World War III.
WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- According to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG which is one of WP Guidelines,
Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many
. IMO, the guideline is quite clear on this issue: we should not include flag icons in military unit infobox. The only exception is the inclusion of flag icons in military conflict infobox. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)- So I am all for removing more flags from infoboxes, but I would note that the first section of MOS:FLAGS says: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams." There's a potential contradiction here that we should probably bring to WT:MOSICON. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @The ed17 Context is everything, and one example where flags can work admirably is military battles, such as the Battle of the Atlantic, where it is not just one single nationality we are identifying. In fact, the Battle of the Atlantic infobox contains no less than 31 flags, and conveying that amount of information without using flags would be real headache. Likewise international sporting events may benefit from flags.
- But identifying a national team (in isolation) is another matter. Volleyball is a very random example, with countless national volleyball teams being allied to a rather large version of their national flag, e.g. Estonia men's national volleyball team. But not Chile, Germany, Romania or Venezuela, who all display the logo of their national volleyball federation at the top of their infobox.
- Returning to your point, WP:MOSICON goes on to say Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. For the Battle of the Atlantic, they are used to replace text in a succinct manner. In the cases I am addressing, the country name 'France' (for example) is accompanied by the flag of France, and that isn't giving us anything extra, so it fails. It's mere decoration. For a military-themed example, WP:MOSICON also says Template:Infobox weapon has explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.
- WendlingCrusader (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- So the name France or Norway is a bit confusing and so needs a flag next to it? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- So I am all for removing more flags from infoboxes, but I would note that the first section of MOS:FLAGS says: "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams." There's a potential contradiction here that we should probably bring to WT:MOSICON. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- NO I do not think they do, but do often cause a lot of hassle. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Flags are like adjectives and adverbs, the less the better. Keith-264 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
WW2 British/Indian artillery
[edit]Hi all, I have a number of questions about this pic: File:Indian-field-gun-keren.jpg which appears at Battle of Keren#15–27 March, fought in March 1941.
This is the original caption from Library of Congress:
- "India in the war. Indian soldiers in action before the capture of Keren in Eritrea. This gun hurled approximately 24,000 shells a day. Note the shadow of camouflage on the field gun."
I realise that the caption reflects that Indian divisions were involved, but it may not be 100% accurate, like many wartime captions.
1. Which gun is pictured? Could it be an QF 18-pounder gun, or an QF 18/25 pounder, with the split trail, see Ordnance QF 25-pounder#Mark I? Some clues might be found in: the distinctive double-drilled slide below the barrel; the vertical handles on the shield; the slit in the top left of the shield; and the type of ammunition, apparently two-part.
2. Are the soldiers (apart from the obviously white officer) necessarily Indian? Put another way, avoiding questions of skin colour, would an Indian battery have used this gun? The infobox at Battle of Keren gives the 4th Infantry Division (India) and 5th Infantry Division (India) as the main combatants, but both 'Formation during World War II' sections in these articles indicate that the artillery was attached to the divisional HQ and appears to be mostly British Army rather than Indian. The most likely Indian unit appears to be the 1 Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Battery from the 5th Division, see Regiment of Artillery (India)#Second World War with this source, [pdf p. 33] (which also uses this pic) links to 23 Field Regiment (India)#76 (Jammu and Kashmir) Battery, but this unit seems to have used the QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer.
3. Is this rate of fire (24,000 shells per day) even scarcely believable? This would indicate firing 1,000 rounds per hour, 16.66 rpm, a shell every 3 to 4 seconds, non-stop.
Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure I can help with the latter two questions, but it's a QF 18-pounder gun. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, it seems to be a Mk. IV 18 pounder Field Gun on Mk V carriage. Basic info about Indian gunners at Royal Indian Artillery. For example, 41 Field Regiment (India)#84 (Scindia) Field Battery was issued with 18 pounders in 1934. See also Regiment of Artillery and List of regiments and corps of the Indian Army#Artillery. Thanks for your help. MinorProphet (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Prewar, I believe that Indians only manned mountain artillery units, with all other artillery manned solely by British soldiers. This was a legacy of the 1857 Mutiny.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hiya. "The British felt that the Indian possession of modern weaponry was a potential threat and thus maintained the Indian Army as only a light infantry and cavalry force commanded by British officers. A few batteries of Mountain Artillery within the Royal Artillery retained Indian gunners, and a few Indian princes kept their artillery weaponry; so some native Indians remained familiar with field artillery operations...
- "The British Government relented on the order banning native artillery, and thus on 15 January 1935, `A' Field Brigade, comprising four batteries of horse-drawn guns, was raised at Bangalore. 'A' Field Brigade was the first Artillery unit to be officered by Indians and, besides inspiring great pride in the Regiment, is close to the hearts of all Gunners. 2 Lt (later Lt Gen) P S Gyani was the first Indian officer to be commissioned into an Artillery unit. In 1937, the maintain batteries, which had formed part of the Royal Artillery, were transferred to the Indian Artillery, which later became 1st Indian Field Regiment. The generic title the Regiment of Indian Artillery was conferred upon the new Arm, which got a tremendous boost with the transfer of 6 Indian Mountain Regiment of Royal Artillery, raising of 'B' Field Brigade and the first unit of the anti-tank, anti-aircraft and coastal artillery." From Regiment of Artillery, cited above.
- Expenditure of shells, as mentioned above: "Between 15 and 27 March, the Royal Artillery facing Keren fired more than 110,000 shells, all carried by lorry from railhead over 150 miles away. (Wavell's Despatch. Supplement to London Gazette, 10 July 1946) From East African and Abyssinian Campaigns Ch. 18, by Neil Orpen. Obviously some exaggeration in the caption - that solitary gun would have needed a few new tubes as well...
- I still haven't able to find out which unit might be depicted - the first Pathé newsreel here shows plenty of explosions though, in the desolate mountainous scenery. Anyone have access to Gulati, YB (1973). History of the Regiment of Artillery, Indian Army? MinorProphet (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Leslie Controls
[edit]When I created the article Leslie Controls (before I knew what sources were acceptable), the company was significant in my view for train horns. Because someone decided the company was not notable, I did some additional research and found that it was well known for its contributions to the military. At least non-independent sources and routine coverage stated this was so. I'm trying to figure out if there are any sources that haven't been considered that would help the article pass the notability test.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- At the very least, you'd need to add whatever exactly it supplied to the military.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- One source says "reducing valves" and "regulators". It was not independent as it came from the company history everyone was given a copy of at an anniversary event. Other than that the specifics are not stated. You can see here.
- However, I was hoping this source would be approved. It gives a little more detail. I don't want to type the quotes myself.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
hyphen or dash in Category:Torpedoes_of_the_United_States?
[edit]Many years ago Bliss-Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo was moved to Bliss–Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo, hyphen to ndash, but the rest from those two people are not, see the Category. Should the Mark 8 be moved back, or should the other Bliss-Levitt torpedoes move changed like the Mark 8 was?Naraht (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
When a unit changes name
[edit]Firstly, let's distinguish between what I would describe as a simple change of name; i.e. when 57 Fighter Squadron (57 FS) becomes 57 Tactical Fighter Squadron (57 TFS), in a process that probably involves hundreds of units doing the same thing. I don't have a problem with this, although unit histories detailing that unit X was disbanded on one date, and unit Y created two weeks later, does have an unfortunate side effect of cluttering up an article with date trivia.
However, there is a second instance which is more problematic. If 100 squadron, flying fighters out of Little Piddington, Worcestershire, then morphs into 629 squadron, flying heavy bombers out of somewhere in Italy, as I see it, the 100 squadron article stops dead at that point.
Alternatively, if the 40th Bombardment Squadron is re-designated the 4th Antisubmarine Squadron along with a change of Command, Wing, aircraft and base, how can it be the same unit? But that's not the end; this unit was disbanded, and re-activated 14 years later as 24th Tactical Missile Squadron (new Command, Wing, base, and no aircraft, just missiles). Again, how can that be the same unit in terms of this Wikipedia article? But that's not the end either; the 24th TMS was inactivated, and the personnel & assets spread around. Two years later it is re-activated, this time as the 74th Air Defence Missile Squadron, at a new base, in a different country, and meh, whatever. But that's still not quite the end of it; out of some kind of magicians hat, the 40th Bombardment Squadron, the unit we started with, suddenly re-appears and is consolidated with it's own grand-daughter and great-grand-daughter, the 24th TMS and the 74th ADMS. Thankfully, they all appear to be inactive units, so it was just a paper-exercise. I pride myself on being able to tease out relevant detail from some other editor's mixed-up story, but this one has me beat. Worryingly, I fear it is an accurate portrayal of how the USAF see this unit's history.
Now, you can, quite correctly, suggest that the proper place for this discussion is the relevant article talk-page. But I suspect it is just the tip-of-an-iceberg. I'm looking for some kind of general discussion regarding units folding into each other, merging, or just re-appearing with a whole new identity, role, personnel and equipment. This is less about RAF or USAF internal re-organisations, and more about how should Wikipedia handle it?
WendlingCrusader (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- USAF unit history is often an exercise in smoke and mirrors as you mention. They like to tack lineage onto new units, and examples abound. It's not just inactive units, either. They do it with active units as well. As for how Wikipedia should handle the issue...that's a good question. Internal links to squadrons/wings past and present is a good start, because that lets interested people track a unit's history without getting bogged down in a massive article with tons of confusing name/designation changes noted as sub-sections. This would also let us track the inevitable reshuffling of lineage that often occurs with USAF units (not sure about RAF) without redoing articles or having to mess with a bunch of redirects. Intothatdarkness 16:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
[edit]Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Should the U.S. be considered a combatant in the Israel-Hamas war, in the infobox?
[edit]Hello Project Military History. Advertising this discussion to a wider audience, on a use case of the "conflicts" infobox - should the U.S. be considered a combatant in the Israel-Hamas war, in the infobox?
Thanks. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement
[edit]The US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement is up for renewal by the end of the year. It is unlikely to make the front pages here, but should be big news in the UK. If UK-based editors could keep an eye out and alert me when it happens, that would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)