| Revision as of 22:20, 14 October 2014 editMaile66 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators142,939 edits →Helpful link - US Army manual of style: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:34, 14 October 2014 edit undoNeotarf (talk | contribs)4,029 edits →Ottoman army Turkish diary source: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 298: | Line 298: | ||
| For anyone writing about the U. S. military, this link is helpful on . ] (]) 22:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | For anyone writing about the U. S. military, this link is helpful on . ] (]) 22:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Ottoman army Turkish diary source == | |||
| Here is a source for "The Diary of Sami Yengin, 1917-18: The End of Ottoman Rule in Syria" by Zachary J. Foster. The diary was originally written in Turkish by someone who later became some kind of army clerk, so may be of interest to anyone working on the Arab Revolt, the topic of Turks in the Ottoman army, or looking for lists with more war diaries, as there is an extensive bibliography. . Also here: . Regards, —] (]) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:34, 14 October 2014
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
CfD Category:Former_military_equipment_of_the_Philippines
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC).
Coats of arms as national identifiers
I've run across coats of arms being used as national identifiers in the European Air Transport Command. This seems very non-standard to me, but when I replaced them with flags, I was reverted per this diff. AFAIK, we always use flags in MILHIST and WPAIR articles. Are coats of arms allowed in such instances? I hardly think they are as recognizable as flags, which should be the point Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree as well. The only time using coats of arms in such a context seems justified would be in cases where there's no flag available (e.g. for various medieval principalities), but obviously that's not the case here. Kirill 01:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Agree, especially when Template:Coat_of_arms generated two images from files with {{Insignia}} one with {{PD-self}} and one with {{PD-Polishsymbol}}. My understanding is that such images should be used with extreme caution, primarily to illustrate an article about the subject itself (eg: heraldry or the organisation (government or monarchy for example). --Bye for now (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose the risk with flags is that they have a tendency to change. For example, the Nazi flag and the modern German flag. Likewise, there are a few historical flags that are highly similar to modern flags of very different countries. Adam Cuerden 11:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- In this case, there is little to be concerned about with the flags. Also, coats of arms are just as prone to changes as flags are. Look at Austria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- I suppose the risk with flags is that they have a tendency to change. For example, the Nazi flag and the modern German flag. Likewise, there are a few historical flags that are highly similar to modern flags of very different countries. Adam Cuerden 11:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Agree, especially when Template:Coat_of_arms generated two images from files with {{Insignia}} one with {{PD-self}} and one with {{PD-Polishsymbol}}. My understanding is that such images should be used with extreme caution, primarily to illustrate an article about the subject itself (eg: heraldry or the organisation (government or monarchy for example). --Bye for now (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree as well. The only time using coats of arms in such a context seems justified would be in cases where there's no flag available (e.g. for various medieval principalities), but obviously that's not the case here. Kirill 01:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Possible category
Why not a Category:Military personnel of World War I and World War II? - Hoops gza (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Potentially a quite big category since a lot of the higher ranks - and therefore probably have an article - in WWII served in WWI. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
It could be subcatted by nationality. - Hoops gza (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- If we do this I would recommend naming it "Military personnel of both World Wars" or "Military personnel of both World Wars I and II" to make clear who we are referring to. (on first glance I thought this category would contain anybody who thought in either war, which would make it unreasonably massive). Another point regarding subcatting by nationality is that some people may have fought in both wars but with a different nationality in each (for example Austro-Hungarian in WWI and Hungarian in WWII, or British in WWI and Australian in WWII). — Cliftonian (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hate to be the bucket of cold water, but why exactly do we need this? What is the problem we are trying to fix? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree with Peacemaker here. Categories are to add additional navigational benefit to related articles. I think it would only add confusion when two massive conflicts would be smushed together. --Molestash (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note that it is possible to use existing tools (eg Magnus' CatScan) to derive a list of articles that lie within in a number of user-specified categories. For example setting the scope to both the WWI and WWII personnel categories with a depth of search of 4 (so that it encompasses all of the sub category levels) tells me that there are 3050 articles that lie within both categories. You can refine this search by using the sub categories as your search terms (taking Cliftonian's examples you can discover that there are 33 articles in both the British WWI and Australian WWII personnel categories (and sub-cats) and 10 articles in the Austro-Hungarian/Hungarian example). The only problem is the tool is sometimes very slow (or down), there is a long-standing proposal for an on-wiki solution at Misplaced Pages:Category intersection but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast - Dumelow (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I fail to see the need for putting both wars in the same category. I don't see an advantage, and lumping them together just confuses things...but then categories are often confusing anyway. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note that it is possible to use existing tools (eg Magnus' CatScan) to derive a list of articles that lie within in a number of user-specified categories. For example setting the scope to both the WWI and WWII personnel categories with a depth of search of 4 (so that it encompasses all of the sub category levels) tells me that there are 3050 articles that lie within both categories. You can refine this search by using the sub categories as your search terms (taking Cliftonian's examples you can discover that there are 33 articles in both the British WWI and Australian WWII personnel categories (and sub-cats) and 10 articles in the Austro-Hungarian/Hungarian example). The only problem is the tool is sometimes very slow (or down), there is a long-standing proposal for an on-wiki solution at Misplaced Pages:Category intersection but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast - Dumelow (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree with Peacemaker here. Categories are to add additional navigational benefit to related articles. I think it would only add confusion when two massive conflicts would be smushed together. --Molestash (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hate to be the bucket of cold water, but why exactly do we need this? What is the problem we are trying to fix? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- If we do this I would recommend naming it "Military personnel of both World Wars" or "Military personnel of both World Wars I and II" to make clear who we are referring to. (on first glance I thought this category would contain anybody who thought in either war, which would make it unreasonably massive). Another point regarding subcatting by nationality is that some people may have fought in both wars but with a different nationality in each (for example Austro-Hungarian in WWI and Hungarian in WWII, or British in WWI and Australian in WWII). — Cliftonian (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd say that having fought in both world wars would be quite an interesting feature of a biography... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
RFC:Should an article be created containing all states that have launched a Military intervention in Iraq against ISIS in 2014?
The RFC is here:Talk:2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#RFC:_Military_intervention_against_ISIS_2014_in_IraqSerialjoepsycho (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/John V. "Scarsdale Jack" Newkirk
Dear military experts: This old AfC submission seems quite interesting. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Looks quite interesting. I am prepared to help out with it - though I can't promise where it will lead, --Bye for now (PTT) 17:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- There appears to be plenty to go on to make this into a decent article. Could someone please "rescue" this from the AfC backlog - even if only as a stub?. I 'll work on it for a few days or so then submit it for assessment. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 10:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bye for now. Now that it's being edited, it won't be deleted for six months, so you have lots of time. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Another day is all I need but it will be another ten weeks before I have enough time in to be able to assess it myself according to the AfC criteria. Maybe I should push the button on it and see what happens, --Bye for now (PTT) 18:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, that worked ok. The article has been created. --Bye for now (PTT) 07:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's coming along nicely. Keep up the good work. Kierzek (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Almost there now - just details from his final mission to be added, then lead can be done and it can be submitted, (subject to tidying up first) --Bye for now (PTT) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, Bye for now, you certainly dug your teeth into that article. Thanks again! —Anne Delong (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Almost there now - just details from his final mission to be added, then lead can be done and it can be submitted, (subject to tidying up first) --Bye for now (PTT) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Regiment of Riflemen (United States)
My article submission Regiment of Riflemen (United States) was accepted last night and assigned to WikiProject United States. It's rated as a C-Class and I'd like to see it adopted by this WikiProject and get the tender loving care to make it up to B-Class. I've also asked Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States to review the effort. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- OK it's in the project now. I made some comments on the talk page. Looks like it shouldn't take much to bring it to B status. Good work and don't forget to be bold. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Kent (1799)
Does the ship Kent (1799) fall under this Wikiproject? Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say yes. It's nearly B-class by my evaluation; just needs a little more information. Adam Cuerden 11:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Conversion to Lua
I notice that some of the projects infoboxes and like have been converted to Lua - eg Template:Infobox military conflict (and underlying code such as Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style). Does the project have participants that are adept in Lua. It seems to becoming more common and while the projects templates are fairly stable, if we are all used to that mixture of html and wikitext, we might find ourselves out of depth with Module:Infobox military conflict. Though perhaps it is just that I am unnerved by the change and there is no problem...GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting! I've been meaning to play around with Lua for some other things that I'm working on; this will provide some extra motivation. Kirill 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is at least one
. I think you'll find the source easier to follow than the old templates. You can read up on Lua here. Maybe the Bugle could interview Jackmcbarn about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be up for that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is at least one
General Butt Naked Article
Should this article have the name or nickname as it's article name? Should it be named as Joshua Milton Blahyi? Of course it's a funny nickname, but seriously, this guy is living. Adamdaley (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Based on what I can see on the talk page, the previously established consensus was that "General Butt Naked" is the WP:COMMONNAME amongst English-language third-party reliable sources. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
GNG, BIO1E, and NOTMEMORIAL
So got to thinking, given some of the AfD's I have been involved in and the current AfD of Robert Leycester Haymes, I was thinking we might want to discuss how we handle deaths of service members again. When many soldiers die in combat, especially with the amount of new outlets of reliable sources, they receive significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources, thus meeting WP:GNG. However, most would argue WP:NOTMEMORIAL come into play when the subject's primary recognition is their death. As a counter, if their actions are significantly noted in the context of a battle or campaign, one can well argue that their death is notable within the context of the event and thus WP:BIO1E, and criteria 5 of WP:SOLDIER (as occurred at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Nakayama). Therefore, rather than a outright delete, when a subject meets WP:GNG, and their death is part of battle or campaign, perhaps a redirect should be created to that battle or campaign, as a general rule rather than outright deletion. Granted this might lead to plenty of redirects being created. I think that's better than zero content, especially given that a movie can be kept with only two reviews in reliable sources (WP:NFILM), when a service member who receives a half dozen obits in multiple reliable sources gets often auto-deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
M.v. Transit - Israli navy war crime
This article was recently created by what looks to be a SPA (Dreyfusnavy (talk · contribs)). It's a mess from whichever way you look at it, beginning with the title, and the fact that most of what it says is based on controversial evidence from a single writer (, ). But there is as far as I can tell, an actual story underneath it. and both confirm the existence of a ship named Transit, apparently sunk by a bomb off Tripoli, Lebanon while carrying refugees from there to Larnaca, with the deaths of 25 people. The article hangs it fairly squarely on the Israeli Navy, presumably tying it in with the 1982 Lebanon War, but as to describing it as a torpedoing by an Israeli submarine, there seems to be no evidence I can find beyond the shadowy assertions of suppressed information and court documents.
It's currently tag as a prod for deletion, and if there was ever to be an article on this, it would need to be written from scratch, so I'm wholly in favour of its deletion. But the primary reason for deletion, that it's a hoax, may not be quite true. There seems to have been an incident of some sort, that would have been written about if wikipedia had existed at the time, alas it's now massively distorted for probable POV pushing, but this incident seems to have been overlooked on the internet at least. Does anyone have any more detailed reliable sources that might shed some light on this odd episode? Benea (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Philippines during World War II - problem on article naming?
An IP editor - who may or may not have edited in this area before - has been adding previously-removed content in articles relating to the Philippines. I suspect from one or two elements of their editorial style (excessive use of capitals, a non-English idiomatic form, the material added) that they are the previous editor but that is by-the-by. While any troublesome edits can be handled in the usual manner, I'm not sure what to do with redlinks added for guerilla/insurgent conflicts during the Japanese occupation. Creating redlinks in Template:Military Operations of the Philippine Commonwealth Army is reasonable; there was activity by former PCA personnel/units on the various islands of the Philippines, and in an ideal world someone would turn these into articles with useful content, but what should these conflicts be called? The IP editors forms (eg Japanese Conflict and Insurgency in Luzon (1942-45)) generally fail to meet the norms of article naming on several levels. I've edited the names of some of the redlinks to what to me is a more natural form but has anyone got better names for these. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think a blanket deletion of the redlinks per WP:BURDEN is in order. The Commonwealth's Philippine Army ceased to exist as an effective organization, sure there were units that became the hearts of guerrilla organizations (including some American units), and some organizations claimed to continuations of that organization, even after the formal surrender of USAFFE (which the PA fell under). However, without the IP editor showing some source indicating that there is significant coverage for these campaigns (like guerrilla activity on island B) in the talk page, than deletion of those redlinks shouldn't be unwarranted IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll give it a go, if I'm wrong it's no effort to back to an earlier version. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with this reversion. I've also blocked the account. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, what is the process of blocking these accounts?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with this reversion. I've also blocked the account. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll give it a go, if I'm wrong it's no effort to back to an earlier version. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs of military-people
I've completed the above category. It is down by 4.82%. I may have missed some that were containing images, but that's alright. At least the majority of them have been removed. Adamdaley (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Page watching
Since some people here are more knowledgable than I am in the topic, I recently processed this OTRS thread on Operation François, where the person asked how to fix the article. Besides calling it wildly inaccurate and subject to revisionist history (they are apparently an expert on this sort of thing), they also have proposed deleting it and creating two articles in its place. @Tomasgreene: You also might want to check this out since it is your article, but I would like it if others who might actually know more about the topic than me could take a look and watch it, as I suspect that they'll just replace the text and plug their book. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Syrian Civil War
The absolute majority of articles related to the Syrian Civil War are written by non MILHIST members.Same goes for the Donbass War.Maybe we can recruit some of the active editors, working on the above mentioned topics.This will lead to a steady article quality improvement.--Catlemur (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Anything written so recently isn't history, it's journalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Kukri
Some members of WP:MILHIST may be aware that the Kukri has become involved in the controversy over Top Gear's visit to Argentina. Officials in Ushaia have claimed the name of the Gurkha knife is the EKH (not the Kukri) and one of the cars had the plate EKH 46 J. An editor combining this with WP:OR and WP:SYN found an American website selling Gurkha collectibles, with its product design of EKH-GACI-19 and has jumped to the conclusion this is proof that it was an insult . In army service the Kukri is designated the "The British Army Issue Kukri, Service Number One". I would appreciate it other editors could comment on the talk page confirming this please. WCMemail 21:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
British Army's Royal Engineers article names
Should all the appropriate Royal Engineers articles such as the regiments and the squadrons have "RE" after the name so they look like "21 Engineer Regiment RE"?
The Royal Logistic Corps, Army Air Corps, Royal Artillery and the Royal Air Force have their approipate initials in the titles.
Gavbadger (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would have thought commonname takes precedence. One problem with RLC, RE etc is that country disambiguation is probably still needed, as only military types will know what the initialisation stands for. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- G'day, interesting question - always keen for a chat about the Ginger Beers. I'd suggest just using the country disambig in most cases, for instance 22nd Engineer Regiment (Australia). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- If corps names are to be appended (and that is common in most cases, although I'd dispute it with engineer regiments and with all Royal Corps of Signals units), then I'd prefer them to be expanded. For example, 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps instead of 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment RLC. RAF is one of the few abbreviations recognisable to most people. The others are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Ex-Royal Artillery Major stripped of Military Cross
According to this BBC news report, as backed up by this notice in the London Gazette, a former major in the Royal Artillery has been stripped of the Military Cross, which was awarded for service in Afghanistan in 2009. I've made a note of the award been annulled in List of British gallantry awards for the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), but as such an action does seem to be fairly unprecedented, it may make more of a splash in the media, which may affect articles on Misplaced Pages.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Might be worth some sort of section in an article on British decorations being the first annullment but I wouldn't like to see an article about ex-Major Armstrong on its own. Nthep (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Military history/Weaponry task force articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation help needed with Messenian Wars
Messenian Wars has eight incoming links, and seems a bit thorny because of conflation of the first two. It may be necessary to turn this into a freestanding article to resolve that issue. Expert attention would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Manual archive
We've got a couple of topics at the beginning of the list which aren't auto-archiving. can it be done manually? Monstrelet (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, those sections are unsigned/undated. The archive bot ignores them because of they aren't dated. I just archived them. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
What is it?
Having created this article (UK Military Flying Training System) I am not at all sure about how to categorise it. Is it military history? Is it a military establishment? Is it a company? What infobox would be appropriate? any ideas would be welcome! If you can spare a few minutes, I'd appreciate your input on the Talk page. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 17:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Bye, categorising an entire system isn't simple; all those you've mentioned could be argued as being appropriate. As far as an infobox goes, however, for List of British Commonwealth Air Training Plan facilities in Australia we simply used a unit infobox, which is pretty flexible, so that may be appropriate here. There may be other opinions of course! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks similar, Ian. But another close equivalent could also be the Future_Strategic_Tanker_Aircraft - similar overall value and much the same contractors bidding, which has an Infobox aircraft program template. Another military PFI deal is Colchester Garrison (£2.2bn ?)- though the WP article doesn't even mention it! Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 21:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Or is it just a privatised organisation with a very large background section going back to 1917 ?? :o) --Bye for now (PTT) 21:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft article is primarily about the acquisition program for a single aircraft type, for whih {{Infobox aircraft program}} is appropriate. UK Military Flying Training System is about much more than just an acquisition program, so using that infobox wouldn't be appropriate there especially as it involves multiple aircraft types. The unit infobox is propably the best one to use. NATO Flying Training in Canada is about a similar program, though on a smaller scale, but has no infobox. - BilCat (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to play devil's advocate: how can an organisation that is owned, run and (ideally/eventually) entirely staffed by civilians be considered a military unit? Is it not really the name for a supply contract, admittedly a very elaborate/complex one? --Bye for now (PTT) 09:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Though THIS presentation I just came across gives the impression that the RAF are calling the shots. Perhaps I have inadvertently created a section for the No. 22 Group RAF article. --Bye for now (PTT) 15:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Because it's fulfilling the role of a military unit? As Ian Rose, the unit infobox is fairly flexible, and it may be the best one out there for dealing with the various aspects of the organization. Other infoboxes that might work are Template:Infobox company and Template:Infobox organization. An alternative would be to create an infobox for military contractors, perhaps Template:Infobox military contractor, which would ave the specific fields needed in these cases. Such total service contracts are becoming common enough that a specialized infobox might be warranted. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- BFN, you might want to create a sandbox, and use Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox company and Template:Infobox organization in it. This will let you try out the various fields available in each infobox, and see if one will work in the this case. If none are appropriate to your needs, then you'll have an idea of what parameters a Template:Infobox military contractor would need. - BilCat (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointers - I've had a look at them (plus clicked around at some others). Thing is, I'm not convinced that the UK Military Flying Training System actually is a civilian organisation, I was just playing devil's advocate. The term UK Military Flying Training System has been used freely within UK procurement as the name of the project and they are the ones paying. Having come across some organisational info now (via Berlin, of all places) I'm thinking maybe Template:Infobox_government_agency might suit. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 17:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- That one's an option too, though may you discover it's inadequate too. If you can keep track of what's lacking, it'll be useful if we do decide to create a new navbox. - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll put it up for now - even if only as a starting point. --Bye for now (PTT) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
An Irish WWI priest and a US consul who fought slavers in the Congo
I have recently been able to expand Francis Gleeson (priest) and Richard Mohun, articles that I first started writing a few years ago. If anyone gets a chance I would appreciate any help, particularly with copyediting and grammar. I'd love to take these articles further along the assessment process eventually (I think Gleeson could use some more detail but Mohun's article is fairly comprehensive now). Let me know what you think, thanks - Dumelow (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Dumelow: Looking at Mohun...
- Lead
- Why "soldier of fortune" and not "mercenary"? It sounds like a romanticized portrayal.
- There's definitely some room for reducing fluff: "... commercial agent in Angola and the Congo Free State. During his time as commercial agent ..."
- Awkward: "Mohun remained in the service of the US government during this time and was subsequently posted as consul to Zanzibar."
- "Following the conclusion of his three-year posting, ..." -- When was this? There's no reference to any years around here, aside from the initial birth and death.
- "His most ambitious undertaking was a three-year expedition, ..." -- Did he lead this expedition? I assume he didn't lay it himself. ;-)
- You don't mention in the lead how he got back to the US and/or how he died.
- Early life
- "Richard Dorsey Mohun was born in Washington, D.C. on April 12, 1864, and was the grandson of the Catholic writer Anna Hanson Dorsey, and was privately tutored at home." -- several problems here. First, who were his parents? There's no need for an extensive description, but were they wealthy? Poor? Etc. Second, he was privately tutored while being born? The last part of the sentence does not agree with the beginning. Third, you're using "and" far too much. You need compound sentences, but you should find other ways to link them together!
- "... became the fourth member of his family to campaign for its eradication." Who else?
- US agent in the Congo
- Repeated information: "Mohun's grandmother, Anna Hanson Dorsey, was close friends with the mother of US Secretary of State James Blaine and Blaine and Dorsey shared ties with Notre Dame University." -- repeated information (grandmother), and just read the rest of the sentence out loud. :-)
- Awkward: "The US had maintained an agent in the Congo ever since it had first formally recognised the state and the commercial agent also acted as the diplomatic representative in the country."
- Awkward, too many ands: "The post came with a $5,000 annual budget and a remit to investigate the commercial potential of Congo and to promote trade between the two countries, which previously had been almost non-existent."
- "Mohun travelled to Africa via Belgium, the European colonial overlord of the Congo, where he met King Leopold II who, in spite of his callous reputation, impressed Mohun with his apparent ambition to bring peace and western civilization to the Congo." I tweaked this sentence nut still don't like it. It's unclear where "where" is referring to—the Congo or Belgium.
- He was based in Luanda? The city in Angola? Either way, you need to fix the link, as it goes to a dab page.
- "He spent much of his time in exploration of the country's interior, visiting several areas where no white man had ever ventured. -- try "exploring"
- "On one occasion ... eaten by cannibals." -- this is a series of run-ons.
- "The slavers, who originated from the East coast of Africa, were in conflict with the Belgian authorities, who were heavily outnumbered." "Who ... who"
- "On April 19, 1893, Mohun was appointed commander of the artillery attached to a Belgian expedition ..." -- Passive voice. Who appointed him?
- "Mohun had risen to the position owing to the illness of the original Chief of Artillery, a Belgian Army officer." Try "Mohun rose to the position after the original chief of artillery, an officer in the Belgian army, fell ill with ."
- "The expedition was struck by a smallpox epidemic in December 1893 at Bena-Kamba but Mohun survived to lay siege to the slavers' Boma at Basoko. -- there were still enough men alive to conduct a siege?! Begs for a little more information if you have it. Also, you've left it to the reader to assume that they won the siege, but did they? How long did it take? Or did they escape to Tanganyika, where they were finally driven from the country? Was the defeat total, and slavers never bothered the Free State again (you imply this)? Very confused.
- "... subsequently made second-in-command ..." Who made him second-in-command?
- "... successfully completed the remainder of the task." Fluffed out. "Successfully" or "completed" are redundant when used together, and "the remainder of" can just be removed.
- "Mohun had remained US commercial agent throughout this time, ..." -- "Had" is unneeded, but you did need "the" or "a" before "US".
- $5000 ... how much is that now? ({{inflation}}) USD or Belgian franc?
- "Société Anonyme Belge pour le commerce du Haut Congo Brussels" -- translate the name into English as well?
- "Mohun's stated priority in the Congo was to improve conditions for the inhabitants by bringing them within the Belgian sphere of influence." -- his own priority or his directive from the US government?
- "He also claimed that the popular image of Belgian brutality in the region was a lie spread by missionaries—a statement contradicted by evidence of unnecessary cruelty by Belgian troops." -- you're correct, obviously, but what evidence? Did the US/Belgian public and government have access to that evidence at the time?
- "The diary does, however, record an incident where punitive action was taken against a Chieftain by burning his village. " Was this the incident mentioned earlier in the article?
- Just the first couple sections. You've got some great information in this article, so these are just suggestions on how to improve your writing to make it clearer for readers. I'd also take some time with Tony1's writing exercises. Hope these comments help! Ed 22:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your help Ed, I have pasted your comments above into the article talk page so I can work through them when I have the time. I fear the prose has suffered and fragmented during the recent expansion of the article and I will try to work through and tighten it up in the next couple of weeks. Any further help is, of course, much appreciated. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Plagiarism problems at HAL Tejas
Posting here because I suspect this is the most active project with an interest in this article. I reviewed HAL Tejas (a new indian multifunction fighter) for GAN here and found serious and widespread problems with close paraphrasing and plagiarism. I don't have enough experience writing these articles (or dealing with cases where a large article has been copied piecemeal from multiple sources) so I'm hoping someone who watches this talk page can weigh in with some suggestions or better yet try to re-write the article to remove most of these issues. My review only went up to the end of the Development section but I don't have a reason to believe the issues stopped there. Sorry if this seems like I'm dumping a problem on you folks but I figured I would just light the bat signal and see who flew in. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Protonk! I suspect you'll want to cross-post this at WT:AIRCRAFT, but The Bushranger will know much more about this topic than me. Ed 23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- @The ed17:
Done. Also I haven't forgotten the essay you asked me to spruce up. I've just become somewhat busy as of late. I'll get there, probably well before VE is ready for primetime. :P Protonk (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- @The ed17:
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
I don't quite get why this is a MILHIST article. Adam Cuerden 07:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm guessing because it is set during the American Civil War, and includes large battle scenes etc... but I can't remember if our guidelines mean that this is a suitable/sufficient reason for including it in the project! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I assume that's the reason too, though the connection might be a little tenuous -- much as I enjoy it, as a Civil War picture it ain't exactly Glory or Gettyburg... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- One of my favourite movies. I think it's reasonable, the bridge battle scene reflects on the senseless nature of the fighting, there are a lot of scenes involving Union or Confederate soldiers. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I assume that's the reason too, though the connection might be a little tenuous -- much as I enjoy it, as a Civil War picture it ain't exactly Glory or Gettyburg... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
MV Transit
The M.v. Transit - Israli navy war crime article has been PRODded. I'm uncertain of the notability of the article, but the subject would certainly seem to be notable. A merchant ship torpedoed and sunk by an Israeli Navy submarine. Can anyone shed any light on this? If true (prodded as a possible hoax), it should at least be mentioned in the List of shipwrecks in 1982. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wrecksite (of patchy reliability, but this entry is sourced) states sabotaged, not torpedoed. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Stichting Maritiem Historische Databank has a good history of the ship (in Dutch and English). Seems that there was an incident involving the ship after all. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have had a look around for information in Hebrew and while I cannot find a reference to this incident specifically, a lot of the information surrounding it seems to be genuine. Almog, Rahav and Mike Eldar are real Israeli naval officers, albeit now long since retired. After retiring Mike Eldar wrote a lot of books about the Israeli military during the 1980s and 90s, some of which were published by the Israeli Ministry of Defence. He has been in trouble with them over the last couple of decades because he published military secrets in a couple of books, which were swiftly banned. Last year he unsuccessfully sued the state for restricting his freedom of speech, and this year Admiral Zeev Almog launched a lawsuit against Eldar for defamation. Here are some links (in Hebrew) with information on this. Hope this helps. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I drew attention to this initially here. In short there does seem to have been a ship of that name, sunk at that time, but coverage in reliable sources is very scant. Probably the grain of a truth around an actual event has been overlaid by a dubious and POV mess in the article. Benea (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- The PROD expired, so I've nuked it. Per Benea, the ship was lost, but the story seems to have been exaggerated somewhat. Entry now on the shipwrecks list. Vessel should be notable enough for an article. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I drew attention to this initially here. In short there does seem to have been a ship of that name, sunk at that time, but coverage in reliable sources is very scant. Probably the grain of a truth around an actual event has been overlaid by a dubious and POV mess in the article. Benea (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have had a look around for information in Hebrew and while I cannot find a reference to this incident specifically, a lot of the information surrounding it seems to be genuine. Almog, Rahav and Mike Eldar are real Israeli naval officers, albeit now long since retired. After retiring Mike Eldar wrote a lot of books about the Israeli military during the 1980s and 90s, some of which were published by the Israeli Ministry of Defence. He has been in trouble with them over the last couple of decades because he published military secrets in a couple of books, which were swiftly banned. Last year he unsuccessfully sued the state for restricting his freedom of speech, and this year Admiral Zeev Almog launched a lawsuit against Eldar for defamation. Here are some links (in Hebrew) with information on this. Hope this helps. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Stichting Maritiem Historische Databank has a good history of the ship (in Dutch and English). Seems that there was an incident involving the ship after all. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hoax article?
Hi all, if this isn't a hoax, it should probably be AfD'd: Republic of Louisiana. Thoughts? Ed 20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Times of January 9, 1861 announced an election for 23 Jan 1861 with an immense majority in favour of seccession announced on the 23rd. So maybe it's not entirely made up. --Bye for now (PTT) 20:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've CSD'd it. There was a succession vote but there are no reliable sources saying any such entity existed. Claiming Louisiana was a republic for two weeks is OR, at best. It's a hoax and I commented on the talk page explaining my rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fair points - anyway, there's a couple of refs for the secession vote in the History of Louisiana article for you, if needed. --Bye for now (PTT) 21:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- The entity called itself "State of Louisiana" and never "Republic of Louisiana" so it's a bad title. I moved the entire text to a new article Louisiana secession since this one did contain useful info. Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you all for the quick assistance! Ed 22:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- The entity called itself "State of Louisiana" and never "Republic of Louisiana" so it's a bad title. I moved the entire text to a new article Louisiana secession since this one did contain useful info. Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fair points - anyway, there's a couple of refs for the secession vote in the History of Louisiana article for you, if needed. --Bye for now (PTT) 21:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've CSD'd it. There was a succession vote but there are no reliable sources saying any such entity existed. Claiming Louisiana was a republic for two weeks is OR, at best. It's a hoax and I commented on the talk page explaining my rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
We now have:
- Republic of Louisiana (NOT a redirect)
- Republic of Georgia (1861)
- Alabama Republic
- Republic of Florida
- Republic of Mississippi
- Republic of South Carolina
There's a campaign under way here.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Pinging Spesh531 into this conversation. Given that these are all 'informal terms', why shouldn't they be redirected or deleted? Ed 02:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Given the time restrictions of Louisiana being independent for 2 weeks is not a reason, as Crimea was independent for a day (from what I understand, there was an agreement of Crimea being independent according to the standards of Misplaced Pages, but these sovereign states are from 1860-1, so I digress). Say I represent the government of, for example, Nevada, and for whatever reason, I, as Nevada, leave the union. Am I in limbo? How is the land that would be what was the state of Nevada, be considered? If I as Nevada were to claim to secede and be independent (and for purposes of the civil war states, there is no convention specifying on what constitutes an independent state), it simply self explanatory. Creating a separate article for Louisiana secession makes sense, as Louisiana itself was not independent alone for 5 years, it was however for about a week and a half. Now if you want to have a discussion on whether it was the "Republic of Louisiana" or "State of Louisiana", that is fine, but do not deny that Louisiana itself was politically independent from the union and the non existent CSA.—SPESH531Other 02:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's great theory, but do you have a single reliable source, such as a statement from a contemporary politician, a diary entry, a letter from one official to another, an entry in a print encyclopedia, a newspaper article? Otherwise, what you're doing is original research.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have not researched anything from the two Louisiana pages, the only thing I have sone with the pre-CSA states and the CSA was make accurate maps for them.
- That's great theory, but do you have a single reliable source, such as a statement from a contemporary politician, a diary entry, a letter from one official to another, an entry in a print encyclopedia, a newspaper article? Otherwise, what you're doing is original research.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Given the time restrictions of Louisiana being independent for 2 weeks is not a reason, as Crimea was independent for a day (from what I understand, there was an agreement of Crimea being independent according to the standards of Misplaced Pages, but these sovereign states are from 1860-1, so I digress). Say I represent the government of, for example, Nevada, and for whatever reason, I, as Nevada, leave the union. Am I in limbo? How is the land that would be what was the state of Nevada, be considered? If I as Nevada were to claim to secede and be independent (and for purposes of the civil war states, there is no convention specifying on what constitutes an independent state), it simply self explanatory. Creating a separate article for Louisiana secession makes sense, as Louisiana itself was not independent alone for 5 years, it was however for about a week and a half. Now if you want to have a discussion on whether it was the "Republic of Louisiana" or "State of Louisiana", that is fine, but do not deny that Louisiana itself was politically independent from the union and the non existent CSA.—SPESH531Other 02:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
28th Tennessee Infantry Regiment
I've just found the 28th Tennessee Infantry Regiment article and it needs some work but I have no experience with the U.S Civil War so I was wondering if someone could get it up to a good standard? Gavbadger (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
British Army - Combat Support Arms and Combat services naming conventions
Would be it possible for all the British Army - Combat Support Arms and Combat services have the same naming conventions such as:
- 4th Regiment Royal Artillery (United Kingdom)
- 35th Engineer Regiment Royal Engineers (United Kingdom)
- 1st Signal Regiment Royal Signals (United Kingdom)
- 1st Military Intelligence Battalion (United Kingdom)
- 17th Port and Maritime Regiment Royal Logistic Corps (United Kingdom)
- 2nd Medical Regiment Royal Army Medical Corps (United Kingdom)
- 1st (Close Support) Battalion REME (United Kingdom)
Other options include
- 4th Regiment Royal Artillery
- 35th Engineer Regiment Royal Engineers
- 35th Engineer Regiment (United Kingdom)
- 1st Signal Regiment (United Kingdom)
- 1st Military Intelligence Battalion (United Kingdom)
- 17th Port and Maritime Regiment Royal Logistic Corps (United Kingdom)
- 17th Port and Maritime Regiment (United Kingdom)
- 2nd Medical Regiment RAMC (United Kingdom)
- 2nd Medical Regiment (United Kingdom)
- 1st (Close Support) Battalion REME (United Kingdom)
Because at the moment the:
- Royal Artillery use "th" then Royal Artillery at the end of the article name
- Royal Engineers use (United Kingdom) at the end
- Royal Signals use nothing
- Intelligence Corps have no unit articles
- Royal Logistic Corps use do not use "th" but use RLC at the end
- Royal Army Medical Corps use "th"
- Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers use no "th" but use REME at the end
- Royal Army Dental Corps have no unit articles
- Royal Army Veterinary Corps have no unit articles
- Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps have no unit articles
What do you think?
Gavbadger (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Original edited again. Gavbadger (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I can see where you are going with this and can understand why. It's similar to the Royal Engineers topic that I was tempted to chirp in on - but decided it had too much can-of-worms potential. Some examples:
- No. 653 Squadron AAC was known (and still is) as six-five-three squadron (no number) Mod version: 653 Squadron Army Air Corps
- 29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery was known (and probably still is) as two-nine commando (no sugeestion that 28 had existed before it)
- 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment was known (and still is) as three para. Here we have the first exception that proves the rule, because there actually are a first and a second battalion.
- I could go on. Obviously this is just OR on my part, based on having spoken in the past with people who have either worked for or had dealings with these units. Nevertheless, I hope it gives some idea of how hard it might be to impose some sense of order on the naming conventions of the British Army. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 17:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- How often is disambiguation needed? No need to add "(United Kingdom)" after 4th Regiment Royal Artillery if there aren't any other units known as 4th Regiment in a Royal Artillery. My view would be go for the minimum disambiguation if the corps name isn't clear enough, but equally you could have 2nd Medical Regiment (United Kingdom). What price (or benefit) consistency?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Part of the discussion is also about if at the beginning of the unit name should be just "2" or "2nd" or even "No. ". I know some of the units wouldn't need the United Kingdom disambig but since at the moment the unit names are being constantly being changed with multiple variants I thought a standard naming convention would help. Gavbadger (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be skip any No. at the front and any st, nd, rd or th at the end. --Bye for now (PTT) 18:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- eg, WP article: 39th Regiment Royal Artillery , MoD article: 39 Regiment Royal Artillery --Bye for now (PTT) 19:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- webpage styles change see eg the former page for the regiment at army.mod.ukWelcome to the home page of the 39th Regiment Royal Artillery and the current page for 12 Regiment Royal Artillery uses "12th Regiment Royal Artillery" in the text. I note its also still 2nd Royal Tank Regiment. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, one feature of British Army regiments seems to be a reluctance to be regimented --Bye for now (PTT) 21:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- webpage styles change see eg the former page for the regiment at army.mod.ukWelcome to the home page of the 39th Regiment Royal Artillery and the current page for 12 Regiment Royal Artillery uses "12th Regiment Royal Artillery" in the text. I note its also still 2nd Royal Tank Regiment. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Helpful link - US Army manual of style
For anyone writing about the U. S. military, this link is helpful on U. S. Army CMH Style Guide. — Maile (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Ottoman army Turkish diary source
Here is a source for "The Diary of Sami Yengin, 1917-18: The End of Ottoman Rule in Syria" by Zachary J. Foster. The diary was originally written in Turkish by someone who later became some kind of army clerk, so may be of interest to anyone working on the Arab Revolt, the topic of Turks in the Ottoman army, or looking for lists with more war diaries, as there is an extensive bibliography. . Also here: . Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Category: