Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Military history: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:26, 25 May 2015 editSroc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,714 edits Date format for articles on US military personnel: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 13:54, 25 May 2015 edit undoCjhanley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,164 edits Repeating/appending-RFC on No Gun Ri: new sectionNext edit →
Line 304: Line 304:


Please see the discussion at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers|RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel?}}''' for a discussion on which date format should be preferred for articles on US military personnel. <small>—''']'''&nbsp;]</small> 09:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Please see the discussion at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers|RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel?}}''' for a discussion on which date format should be preferred for articles on US military personnel. <small>—''']'''&nbsp;]</small> 09:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

== Repeating/appending-RFC on No Gun Ri ==

:Request for Comment on No Gun Ri
:Hi to all,
:Once more, I am requesting a review of No Gun Ri Massacre, in part due to the intense feuding and debate over sources that has transpired on that page. If anyone were to volunteer, I would be very grateful.
:Thanks,
:GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

::I, for one, would welcome a peer review of ], in hopes the reviewers will prove to be intelligent, unbiased one way or the other about the U.S. military (and about Asian people), willing to put in the time necessary to understand the No Gun Ri story and the article (including reading the Talk archives back to August 2013, as GeneralizationsAreBad apparently has done), and cognizant of the fact that they themselves should independently review authoritative, professional sources on the subject.

::Over the past 21 months, the article has become an example of the worst of Misplaced Pages. A single angry POV pusher, profoundly ignorant of the subject, has been allowed to make ''no less than 124 edits'' in a furious effort to minimize and excuse the mass killing of South Korean refugees by the U.S. military in 1950, a bloodbath confirmed by two governments and whose basic facts are enshrined in a museum and 33-acre memorial park at the site. While loading the article with countless falsehoods and purging it of crucial facts, he also turned it into an often incomprehensible mess.

::The journalists and academics who know the subject well became disgusted long ago with a system that allows one deeply biased "editor" to revert, without discussion or explanation, every effort to restore established, well-sourced and important facts to the article, facts he killed out earlier. Appeals to WP administrators for help simply led to being sent from one forum to another, with admins either ignoring the appeals or saying they weren't up to dealing with this serious problem. Those of us who are expert on No Gun Ri then decided to let the article fester. This POV pusher's juvenile bullying approach to WP has antagonized and drawn disapproval from dozens of contributors elsewhere. (He has great interest in the subject of guns, and in some imagined threat to the white race called Cultural Marxism). Perhaps the WP community would catch up with him, it was thought. This all is a sad commentary on WP's failures -- thus far.

::I will shortly post separately at ], under the heading READER BEWARE, a litany, with diffs, of the incredible run of blanket reverts WeldNeck made over just one period of a few days to kill any effort to restore integrity and truthfulness to the article. I ''strongly'' urge all interested parties to study it. You'll see that in his frenzy he even attacks simple efforts to restore sense and syntax to the gibberish.

::If appropriate disclipinary action isn't taken in this case, our hope is that peer reviewers with open eyes and clear heads, who background themselves adequately, might get this editor to calm down and face the facts of history. Many thanks. Charles J. Hanley 13:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC) ] (])

Revision as of 13:54, 25 May 2015

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers
Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks
watch · edit · full list
News and announcements
  • The November newsletter is now available.
  • Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C.
Current discussions
  • No major discussions are open at the moment
Featured article candidates
Teddy WynyardOperation Matterhorn logisticsSteele's Greenville expeditionBattle of MorlaixGL Mk. I radarSieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356)
Featured article review
Byzantine EmpireEdward I of EnglandNorthrop YF-23Pre-dreadnought battleship
Featured picture candidates
Thorsten Nordenfelt
A-Class review
USS Texas (BB-35)John S. McCain Sr.Project PlutoSMS BerlinBattle of Köse DağAN/APS-20
Peer reviews
Sher Shah SuriWar of the Antiochene Succession4th Army (France)List of foreign-born samurai in JapanHiroshima MaidensGerman Jewish military personnel of World War IIOutline of George Washington
Good article nominees
Dabney ColemanCrusading movementBlack and TansOttoman destroyer YarhisarRegency of AlgiersHistory of the Regency of AlgiersPerdiccasZiaur RahmanPierre François BauduinFederalist No. 29HMS Sheffield (C24)Charles the BoldAromal ChekavarTumu CrisisMseilha FortSMS Albatross (1871)HMS Savage (1910)HMS Lively (1813)Edward Caledon BruceAlt Llobregat insurrectionFrench ironclad TonnantSMS Scorpion (1860)1991 Andover tornadoRichard Stevens (RAF officer)Henry O'Neill (soldier)Omani ship Nasr al BahrYang YoulinTiepolo conspiracyStatue of John BarryRichard HakingCanonicus-class monitorBattle of ChunjUSS Gyatt
Good article reassessments
USS Texas (BB-35)Haile Selassie1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)Mark Kellogg (reporter)

Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (149,642) • only work on referencing and citation (43,217) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,990) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,925) • work on structure (32,145) • only work on structure (339) • work on grammar (8,205) • only work on grammar (47) • work on supporting materials (32,900) • only work on supporting materials (694) • assessment (5) • assessment as lists (1) • project tags fixed (9) • assessment checklists added (2) • assessment checklists completed (4) • task forces added (8) • attention to task force coverage (653)

Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News & open tasks
Academy
Core work areas
Assessment
Main page
 → A-Class FAQ
 → B-Class FAQ
 → A-Class review requests
 → Assessment requests
 → Current statistics
 → Review alert box
Contests
Main page
 → Contest entries
 → Scoring log archive
 → Scoreboard archive
Coordination
Main page + talk
 → Handbook
 → Bugle newsroom talk
 → ACM eligibility tracking
 → Discussion alert box
Incubator
Main page
 → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects
Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs
Membership
Full list talk
 → Active / Inactive
 → Userboxes
Awards
Main page talk
 →A-Class medals
 →A-Class crosses
 → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources
Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style
Templates
Infoboxes
 → Command structure doc · talk
 → Firearm cartridge doc · talk
 → Military award doc · talk
 → Military conflict doc · talk
 → Military installation doc · talk
 → Military memorial doc · talk
 → Military person doc · talk
 → Military unit doc · talk
 → National military doc · talk
 → Military operation doc · talk
 → Service record doc · talk
 → Militant organization doc · talk
 → Weapon doc · talk
Navigation boxes doc · talk
 → Campaignboxes doc · talk
Project banner doc · talk
Announcement & task box
 → Discussion alert box
 → Review alert box
Template design style doc · talk
Showcase
Featured articles 1514
Featured lists 149
Featured topics 41
Featured pictures 544
Featured sounds 69
Featured portals 5
A-Class articles 684
A-Class lists 40
Good articles 5,579
Automated lists
Article alerts
Most popular articles
New articles
Nominations for deletion
Task forces
General topics
Fortifications
Intelligence
Maritime warfare
Military aviation
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry
Military biography
Military historiography
Military land vehicles
Military logistics and medicine
Military memorials and cemeteries
Military science, technology, and theory
National militaries
War films
Weaponry
Nations and regions
African military history
Asian military history
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history
Balkan military history
Baltic states military history
British military history
Canadian military history
Chinese military history
Dutch military history
European military history
French military history
German military history
Indian military history
Italian military history
Japanese military history
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history
Nordic military history
North American military history
Ottoman military history
Polish military history
Roman and Byzantine military history
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history
South American military history
South Asian military history
Southeast Asian military history
Spanish military history
United States military history
Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare
Medieval warfare
Early Muslim military history
Crusades
Early Modern warfare
Wars of the Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic era
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War
Related projects
Blades
Espionage
Firearms
Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Piracy
Ships
edit · changes
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174



This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012.
Media mentionThis project has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Shortcut

    Widespread sockpuppet disruption - Falklands War, Italian World War II topics, Greco-Italian War, Battle of Crete, Battle of Greece, and Malayan Campaign

    The fol SPI case (now closed) highlights the existence of widespread sockpuppet disruption across a range of areas including the Falklands War, Italian related World War II topics, Greco-Italian War, Battle of Crete, Battle of Greece, Battle of Dunkirk, and the Malayan Campaign (especially the Battle of Singapore), and others - pls see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/TimSala/Archive. These accounts have been in use at various different times mostly in the last few years although some date back to 2010, indicating that much of this disruption is now unlikely to be able to be undone. Perhaps more disturbing is the likelihood of there being other accounts (and possibly new ones). The main accounts confirmed (and blocked) are listed below (there were also a number of stale users and IPs that couldn't be confirmed but were likely and have also be tagged but not listed below):

    I hesitate to just undo all their edits (where that is even possible) as some appear to be helpful; however, given there is obviously several agendas being advanced here there are definite POV concerns as well. Is anyone interested in assisting to review the contributions of these (now blocked) editors and attempting to deal with any issues that become apparent? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

    I'll have a look at 100menonmars, I remember them, and they definitely crossed over into my area of expertise. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    Me too, there seems to be some mischief on the Operation Compass page.Keith-264 (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    Great work in uncovering this problem Anotherclown. The cleanup task is obviously now non-trivial... Are there any particular articles which you think should be priorities? Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Keith-264:, @Farawayman:, @Rich Farmbrough:, @GraemeLeggett: and @EnigmaMcmxc: - FYI I think some of these guys may have edited in areas which you have some knowledge in also. Any chance you might also be able to look over some of their edits too pls? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

    Also if editors working in these areas could also be on the look out for the reappearance of this editor (under a new name of cse) that would be appreciated. They have a fairly distinct style (as per the SPI) so should be fairly easy to spot unless they change their habits (obviously a distinct risk now due to the evidence presented at the SPI though I'd think). Anotherclown (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

    List of articles affected

    17th Infantry Division Pavia Done
    25th Infantry Division Bologna in progress
    27th Infantry Division Brescia
    60th Infantry Division Sabratha
    101st Motorised Division Trieste
    102nd Motorised Division Trento
    131st Armoured Division Centauro Done
    132nd Armoured Division Ariete
    133rd Armoured Division Littorio
    185th Airborne Division Folgore
    Second Battle of El Alamein
    Battle of Goose Green Done
    Battle of Mount Tumbledown Definitely needs editing and removal of some text inserted by this user (some edits valid and to be retained). Must however be done manually as undo does not work because of intermediate edits! Will do in coming days
    5th Naval Infantry Battalion (Argentina)
    H. Jones Done
    Mario Benjamín Menéndez
    Battle of Dunkirk  Done
    Dunkirk evacuation  Done
    602 Commando Company
    Battle of Wireless Ridge
    Battle of Mount Longdon
    Falklands War Done
    Invasion of South Georgia Done
    British invasions of the Río de la Plata
    Assault on Mount Kent, Falkland Islands
    Sea Cat  Done badly referenced material removed
    Pedro Giachino
    1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands
    Battle of Two Sisters  Done
    25th Infantry Regiment (Argentina)  Done dubious material removed

    Battle of Mount Harriet
    Raid on Pebble Island  Done - no issue I could see here
    Argentine ground forces in the Falklands War Done
    British war crimes Done mostly already reverted, what's left is no worse than the rest of the article
    Argentine Navy  Done recent edits, all reverted
    Battle of Greece
    Battle of Crete Done needs a spring clean, citations and decision about trivial sections
    Battle of Singapore Done
    Operation Compass Done
    Siege of Tobruk Done
    HMAS Nestor (G02) Done
    Siege of Giarabub Done
    Tunisia Campaign Done
    Corpo Aereo Italiano Done
    Allied invasion of Sicily Done
    Greco-Italian War Done
    Operation Brevity Done
    Operation Battleaxe Done
    Operation Agreement Done
    Battle of Sedjenane Done
    HMS Sikh (F82) Done
    Battle of Medenine Done
    Battle of El Guettar Done
    Battle of Wadi Akarit Done
    Run for Tunis Done
    British airborne operations in North Africa Done
    2nd Mountain Infantry Division Sforzesca
    Italian war crimes  Done

    3rd Mountain Infantry Division Ravenna
    Anti-Italianism Done - sock's edits here don't appear disruptive
    2nd Alpine Division Tridentina  Done
    Operation Crusader
    Battle of Stalingrad
    Battle of Alam el Halfa Done
    5th Infantry Division Cosseria  Done badly refed material removed
    4th Alpine Division Cuneense  Done
    52nd Motorised Division Torino  Done - badly refed material removed
    9th Motorised Division Pasubio  Done - material not supported by ref removed
    Battle of Kasserine Pass Done
    Battle of Muar  Done
    Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–90)
    Chilean Army
    Revolutionary Left Movement (Chile)
    Field punishment  Done - info added by sock appears relevant and reliable at least
    Battle of the Little Bighorn  Done - additions look to have been removed soon after they were made
    Henri Charrière
    Martín Balza
    Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front
    1973 Chilean coup d'état
    Falintil
    Jorge Rafael Videla
    Dirty War

    I think this is most of them. Some are far more affected than others (and some of the edits date back years so have probably been written over / changed over time) - Anyway I will attempt to prioritize them shortly. Anotherclown (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

    Gee, you weren't joking about this person having an axe to grind. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for your help with this so far. I'm done for the evening now so will have to come back to this tomorrow. If others are interested in assisting, once you have checked / fixed an article pls mark it as done and I'll try and get to whats left. Unfortunately though some articles really look like the edits are so far ingrained that it may take an expert to review them. Not too many of them around either. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    While I have conversed with this editor, if memory serves, Operation Brevity is the only article that we crossed paths editing. His edits were verified and integrated into the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    With regard to articles dealing with the Italian war effort, such as the Italian-Greek War and North Africa, etc, there is a deeper malaise here. Perhaps certain editors are so frustrated by being blocked, they are resorting to these tactics. If you really want to get to the root of the problem, then perhaps a bit of soul-searching and asking the hard questions about what is wrong with many of the articles dealing with the Italian war effort. Until some hard questions are asked, the problem of sockpuppet disruption will not go away. AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    I looked at one article, which is a mess anyway, and most of the sock edits had been reverted by ClueBot.
    I realised when looking at Compass that I had copied a version into a sandbox, in the hope that the mass of trivia being added would stop and I could put it back. As for Annales' point, the Italians are often a bit anonymous in Anglophone writing, like the Canadians in Normandy but it's not easy to find decent sources in English that aren't extortionately expensive.... unless someone knows better?Keith-264 (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    The British, Kiwi, and Oz OH seem a sound starting point. I used them to ref the 70 Div article in regard to Tobruk and they seemed quite balanced and fair avoiding stereotypes and slander.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    I've got them but it's the IOH I want....Keith-264 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    Of course, that would be a real boon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    I've taken a look at Invasion of Sicily and Battle of Kasserine Pass, and there has been substantial editing by 100menonmars, all of it glorifying the Italian contributions. What's the call on this stuff? GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for this. At the very least the massive block quotes in the notes are excessive so I'd remove those in their entirety simply on that basis alone. (This seems to common for many of this editor and their sock's contributions, with lengthy quotes often detailing / highlighting quite minor episodes in an unencylopeadic manner.) Depending on the quality of the sourcing we might keep some of the other material (although I think Lulu is self published so maybe we might need to be careful keeping that too). Anotherclown (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'm dealing with the Italian military formations. Just done the 17th. A strange thing about the blockquotes. They are screamingly out of synth with the information given in mainspace! I am increasingly leaving the blockquotes but rewriting the supporting mainspace narrative so they support what the sources actually report. Amazing. To me it just shows a sign of deep insecurity. Here, 3 hour stands are turned into stunning victories. Sorry, but that is just a halfway decent unit earning it's rations. Will crack on Irondome (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    Made a start on Battle of GreeceKeith-264 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

    Clean-up Military Imposter BLPs

    Hello everyone. I'm still working on a draft article about Military Imposters (what Americans call "Stolen Valor"), which I intend to go live with about June or so. In preparation for this, I was scouring around wikipedia to find related articles and information, and came across the following biographical ones. These all appear to be individuals accused or convicted of lying about military service, but there is nothing else notable about these people that I can see. And according to WP:PERP, they don't qualify because some have never been convicted of crimes and others have had no coverage in any reliable works since their convictions. Therefore I am trying to delete them. A previous attempt was made with PROD by other editors but the admins rejected those because they are supposed to be "uncontroversial" deletions, so looks like we have to do this the hard way. I only nominated two for AFD because I can't keep track of so many at the moment. Feel free to comment on deletion discussions or nominate the others if you can take care of monitoring them (please mark them here so there won't be overlap. Thanks, Legitimus (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

    There's also this list page which seems questionable.

    Thanks for taking this on. You might want to add the AfDs to the relevant deletion sorting list, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. I agree that in most instances these articles will violate WP:ONEEVENT, even when there's detailed sourcing (some of the people who investigate imposters go to great lengths to detail this in written accounts). Given that military imposters often have significant health issues which explains their conduct, there should be a strong bias towards deleting articles on them on privacy grounds IMO. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    I suspect members of the project may be amused by this guide to "Walting With Confidence" (if they haven't seen it already). —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not so sure about George Dupre now. He is deceased, and not only was a book written about his bogus exploits, but he has been featured in subsequent books detailing his deception. This merely makes him more interesting than the others, but I would not oppose deletion anyway due him again being otherwise unremarkable. Alan Mcilwraith might be harder to get deleted because his deception involved Misplaced Pages itself and that action was even covered by the press. Previous attempts have been made to delete the article and were unsuccessful, but I'm hoping in the 8 years since then it will be a more rational conversation. Of note is that Mcilwraith seems to very clearly have mental health issues surrounding ego, recognition and attention. Keeping his article is in a way playing right into his hands.Legitimus (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

    British Army "six-year rule"

    Historian George Forty states that the 77th Division had "a special role of re-classifying men such as those who had returned from overseas under the six-year rule, returned POW, etc."

    I have not been able to find any further information on this, anyone have any ideas what exactly this six-year rule is?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

    (Should note this is a complete guess). It sounds like this might be a rule stipulating (by later on in the war), that anyone who had been overseas for a total of six years should be automatically returned home. Just a thought to try and help. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    I have come across references to a similar concept, but it was never defined as a 6 year rule. It comes out in references to priority demobilisation for servicemen who had been overseas since the outbreak of war, and in leave allocations. I think John Ellis The Sharp End and Col. Hickey's The Unforgettable army (an excellent one volume study of the 14th Army) mention it. Irondome (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    Never heard of it and cannot find anything after a fairly determined Google session, sorry. The Ten Year Rule I know of, but I don't think this is relevant. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/24746-python-lilop-leave/
    http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/what-was-python-post-ww2.125299/

    PYTHON was the name given to the scheme started after VE Day that concerned repatriation and accumulated leave of regulars who had been serving overseas and also demobilization of overseas non-regulars, plus leave entitlement.. The favourite item of conversation in messes and canteens was one's PYTHON number. This number was based on a points system with points allowed for total length of service and the length of time one had been overseas. Points were also given for decorations awarded and for married men with children under 18. years of age.

    LILOP was another scheme, it stood for Leave In Lieu Of Python. This was popular with regulars who were entitled to repatriation according to their Python number but who volunteered to be sent overseas again.

    LIAP was a third scheme which was Leave In Addition to Python. I applied for LIAP when I was in the Arakan and had been 4 1/2 years overseas. I flew back to UK in a Dakota from Rangoon or perhaps Calcutta and landed at an RAF airfield in Somerset. I have no memories at all of this flight. I had 14 days leave and then I reported to the RE Depot Bn at Halifax. After about a week spent in drinking beer in pubs and chasing congenial nurses I boarded a troopship that arrived in Bombay three days after the Hiroshima bomb went off. Hurrah! - a free bottle of beer for all on board.Keith-264 (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

    For personnel in the Far East, Python was set at 3 years 8 months. On 8 June 1945, the Secretary of State for War reduced it to 3 years 4 months. Servicemen were repatriated without waiting for reinforcements to arrive to replace them, although due to the difficulties involved in transportation in the Far East, not everyone could be guaranteed a quick trip home. This had the effect of disrupting plans for Zipper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    I remember reading references to these programs a few years ago, although i never found out more (until today). With these programs becoming active during '44, would it be reasonable to guess that is the role Forty was referring to for the 77th (which disbanded in September '44, and was replaced by a similar holding division)? This gives me something to search for, although my earlier brief searches found very little on the division.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    I think the role of the 77th and PYTHON and it's variants were two completely different schemes. User:Keith-264 who had actual experience of being involved (Respect Keith!} mentions above being merely reallocated to a normal functioning RE depot in Yorkshire. PYTHON is definitely mentioned explicitly in the sources I have mentioned above, especially with regard to the 14th Army in Burma and appears to have been a far more nuanced and large scheme than a mere holding Div could handle. I have no idea what Forty is referring to. I think researching the 77th would be a blind ally on this. Just a hunch. Irondome (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    Actually the passage I added was pasted from another site, apologies for misleading. My military service was a youthful peccadillo of a somewhat inglorious 28 days in 1981. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    AHH! Sorry Keith, my fault, I should have followed the links instead of just plowing on! Duhh! Cheers mate. Simon aka Irondome (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    My understanding is that the way the schemes were soldiers with lengthy overseas service worked was that the soldiers were entitled to a lengthy period of home leave, but were then liable for further service. POWs could also be compelled to serve again. Units would have been needed to process these men after they returned to active duty and assess were they could best be used, especially given that both the British Army and British economy were very short of manpower and the soldiers' skills and health would have often have been quite different to when they were originally posted overseas, and this is a logical role to assign to the depot divisions. It might be worth seeing if the volumes of the British official history which discuss economics and the use of labour mention the topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

    Differences in naming convention

    Hi, back in November 2013, I moved a number of Russian submarine articles with the summary "Name comes before hull or pennant number or disambiguation. As per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ships)#Naming articles about military ships." It appears that such a convention applies chiefly to American and British ships, as those that serve in the Russian and Soviet Navies follow a different naming convention, with the name following the pennant number eg "K-141 Kursk". This convention appears to have been adopted by several other navies as well. Should the moves be kept as they are, or should they be reverted? Has there been a significant oversight on my part? Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©ontributions 06:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

    I'm not sure that for Soviet/Russian submarines, that " K-xxx" is a Pennant or Hull number - its more like an alternative name , with some subs only having a number. For Soviet/Russian SURFACE ships, the pennant number (as painted on the ship's side) would be unsuitable for use as a disambiguator anyway as they were noted as changing very frequently.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

    PSA: Vote and make your voice heard

    Hi all, the election for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees is open. Determine what candidates fit your views and make your voices heard—these people could make some very significant decisions for the future of the movement. I personally used the Signpost's 1-5 rating scale because it was quick and easy; more detailed questions and answers are available. Bottom line: go vote. Ed  08:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

    I just voted - the procedure is certainly painless, and I learned a fair bit about the role of the Wikimedia Foundation and hot issues across different Wikimedia projects. Thanks for the note Ed. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    No problem—thanks for voting! Perhaps after this election's (hopefully) high participation we'll all be listened to. ;-) Ed  08:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

    Battle of Tajura

    Can someone take a look at this orphaned article? Is it worthy of its own article or can it be deleted/redirected somewhere? Could someone more knowledgeable please take a look? Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

    Korean question

    Would Draft:US aerial bombardment of North Korea merit a separate article or be better suited for Korean_War#Aerial_warfare? Thanks for your help, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

    Couple of notes to consider:
    • I would tone down the language a little. It's too hyperbolic and conversational. "Leveled" the peninsula, "massive" hydro electric facility. The bombing did not in fact level the peninsula. There are still large mountainous areas. While it is technically literally a massive facility (as opposed to one constructed out of massless photons), massive is a euphemism for large. An encyclopedia should use the word, not the euphemism. Wording like this is sprinkled throughout.
    • It's absolutely ok to use hyperbolic language like "veritable mass productions of death", as long as they are quotes attributed to a WP:RS. The hyperbole should not be "said" by Misplaced Pages.
    • Take out statements of opinion that exceed the bare facts. "However, the American campaign quickly exceeded the strategic; US leaders intended on crushing North Koreans’ morale." Well, the thing is...that doesn't actually exceed strategic bombing. That is precisely what strategic bombing is. Demoralizing the enemy and inspiring public outcry to end hostilities is kindof the point.
    • This is also seen in "As such, they leveled non-strategic targets such as schools, hospitals, agricultural land, and later the dams that provided power and water to the country". All of these targets have strategic value if the strategy is to destroy infrastructure and morale, which again, is exactly the strategy.
    • Simply put (and this seems to be an overarching premise of the article, and should be excised), strategic bombing in Korea was not quintessentially or qualitatively different than strategic bombing in other wars. WWII was worse than WWI. Korea was worse than WWII. Vietnam was worse than Korea. What you are seeing here is the progression of technology. The basic nature of morale bombing (if it's you) or terror bombing (if it's the enemy), has been the same ever since the first blimp dropped hand grenades on London. We just got "better" at it.
    • Consider a name change to Strategic bombing during the Korean War. Aerial bombardment is a very 19th century term (see wording at the Hague Conference). The modern military term is Strategic Bombing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

    Hmm. It seems that you are not the author of this article. I will post my previous comment on the talk page for the draft. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

    set indices and dpages

    With the newly implemented class=setindex should some of the {{mil-unit-dis}} (ones that only lists military units) be converted to set indexes ? and pages such as Battle of Fallujah (ones that only list combat/military battles) -- then we could redlink battles missing articles, and units missing articles... I will note that that is how shiplists currently work, with redlinks to missing ship articles. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

    Are there two "Wilhelm Brandt" tank warfare officers (Chaco War and WWII) or same person?

    I wanted to work up a stub on Wilhelm Brandt, who was a tank commander for the Bolivian army during the Chaco War. But looking up that name, I'm finding a Wilhelm Brandt who wrote about armored warfare in the 1920s, and during/before WWII desiged Waffen SS camouflage. I'm unable to suss out whether in between those phases he was mucking around in Bolivia, or whether these are two different people of similar name who both happen to be involved with tanks. Any input? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

    @Peacemaker67: or @23 editor: this is a bit out of your normal topic area, but maybe you'll be able to help? Ed  08:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    Not me, but maybe @MisterBee1966:. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    sorry, I have no clue MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    They were one and the same person. The Germans had a military mission to Bolivia, which allowed them to play with tanks outside the Treaty of Versailles. Apparently he talks about his experiences in Bolivia in his books. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    Added some background data on Brandt to the article. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

    The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

    Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

    The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
    If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

    removing disambiguators

    FYI, a bunch of military units have been requested at WP:Requested moves to have their disambiguators removed speedily

    • 2nd Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 2nd Mounted Brigade
    • 4th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 3rd Mounted Brigade
    • 17th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 17th Mounted Brigade
    • 18th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 18th Mounted Brigade
    • 19th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 19th Mounted Brigade
    • 20th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 20th Mounted Brigade
    • 21st Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) → 21st Mounted Brigade

    If this hasn't been already processed, they will show up in a listing at WP:RMTR from this request -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

    This was done without reference to WP:MILMOS#UNITNAMES. They were technically moved, but I believe that was done incorrectly. In some cases, there are Canadian formations with the same title, and in others, the formation actually had another name for the last two years of the war (often as a Cyclist Brigade). Not sure what the requester thought they were doing, but someone who is interested in British Home Army formations of WWI should probably check them all. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    For the units where a Canadian unit shares the same name, a new WP:RMTR can be requested to revert the speedy change on the basis of there being other units sharing the same name. (or someone could just press the move button) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, if you read the MILMOS, these should be at their last name, usually a Cyclist Brigade. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you didn't do mass technical moves when they might well be controversial. RM is the way to do it. That ensures the community has a good look at it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    You'd need to ping the person who requested the technical moves for them to read that. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    Not sure what the requester thought they were doing
    I requested the removal of the disambiguators in the honest belief that they were redundant. It has since been pointed out Talk:4th Mounted Brigade (United Kingdom) by @Peacemaker67: that this was a mistake and I accept this. I note the recommendations in the style guide WP:MILMOS#UNITNAMES In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces. I did not reasonably expect another 2nd, 4th, 17th, ... Mounted Brigade. A google search did not show up anything, though in fairness, I did not think to search for Canadian "4th Mounted Brigade".
    As to renaming the articles to nth Cyclist Brigade - that has other issues that I am happy to discuss with Peacemaker67. Hamish59 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry if I came across as blunt. People do say that about me. I'll talk to Hamish about some options. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

    Input from project solicited for RM Construction battalion (disambiguation)

    Member of this project are invited to participate in a requested move discussion that would benefit from this project's knowledge at: Talk:Construction battalion (disambiguation) --Mike Cline (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

    Mutiny on the Bounty peer review

    This is just a note to let members of the project know that the important article Mutiny on the Bounty, on which Brianboulton and I have been working over the past month or so, is now up at peer review here, with a view to going to FAC afterwards. All comments welcome. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

    Military bases, facilities, or installations

    The consensus of the editors at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_11#Category:Military_facilities_of_the_United_States_in_Germany was to speedy large numbers of category changes from 'military facility'/'military base' to the 2010 recommendation of 'military installation.' The 2010 discussion was at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_12#Military_bases_and_facilities, and there I requested that all the subcategories be moved as well. Some were (eg Category:Military installations by country), and some weren't. To do the remainder, I wrote a series of CfD Speedies. I tried to do this, but @Armbrust: consistently opposed every CfD Speedy that I've raised, on the basis that some of the subcategories mostly use the base or facility term. But the entire focus of my listings has been to standardize the entire category to the 2010 recommendation of 'installation.' I'm quite frustrated with this, and thus I have raised the matter here. I have invited Armbrust to put his point of view, because I cannot fully understand his reasoning at present. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

    Caliber nomenclature

    How are larger calibers denoted? Is it "40mm grenade" or "40 mm grenade"? Also, is it "100mm gun" or "100 mm gun"? (This is a continuation of a discussion here). Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

    See WP:MEASUREMENT. ie there is a space between. But if you use convert templates, they will do that for you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Okay, thanks. I have some self-reverts to perform. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    So does that apply to smaller calibers too? ("a 5.56mm rifle" or a "5.56 mm rifle"?) Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, although it gets a little more complicated if you're not abbreviating the unit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)#Requested move 17 May 2015

    You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)#Requested move 17 May 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

    3rd opinion at US Invasion of Panama

    An editor misread an article in Newsweek and is now trying to alter the infobox to reflect his contention that the US only had 4,500 troops in Panama and that the only units to participate in the invasion were the units flown in (such as the 82nd). In his version, units already there, such as the 193 Infantry Bde didn't participate. I've provided a considerable amount of reliable sources that refute this, but he has a massive case of WP:IDHT. Conversation is here . Outside observations would be helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

    Three editors have weighed in on the issue. The discussion is now closed. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks

    OK I managed to add myself to the main list fine, but the Task Force itself not so much... Haha!

    --Luis Santos24 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

    "4.5th generation" ?

    Why are we adding the "th" after "4.5"? It's not as if we are pronouncing it "four point fifth", (which would actually be written as "4.2"). It's silly, needless and doesn't make sense. It should simply be "4.5 generation". As in, between the "fourth (4th) generation" and "fifth (5th) generation", is the "four point five (4.5) generation". Can we drop the "th"? - WOLFchild 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    3rd opinion at Operation Eagle Claw

    Should the Iranian Commanders be listed in the Combat Infobox even though there was no direct combat between US and Iranian forces during the Iranian hostage rescue mission? Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    Date format for articles on US military personnel

    Please see the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel? for a discussion on which date format should be preferred for articles on US military personnel. sroc 💬 09:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

    Repeating/appending-RFC on No Gun Ri

    Request for Comment on No Gun Ri
    Hi to all,
    Once more, I am requesting a review of No Gun Ri Massacre, in part due to the intense feuding and debate over sources that has transpired on that page. If anyone were to volunteer, I would be very grateful.
    Thanks,
    GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    I, for one, would welcome a peer review of No Gun Ri Massacre, in hopes the reviewers will prove to be intelligent, unbiased one way or the other about the U.S. military (and about Asian people), willing to put in the time necessary to understand the No Gun Ri story and the article (including reading the Talk archives back to August 2013, as GeneralizationsAreBad apparently has done), and cognizant of the fact that they themselves should independently review authoritative, professional sources on the subject.
    Over the past 21 months, the article has become an example of the worst of Misplaced Pages. A single angry POV pusher, profoundly ignorant of the subject, has been allowed to make no less than 124 edits in a furious effort to minimize and excuse the mass killing of South Korean refugees by the U.S. military in 1950, a bloodbath confirmed by two governments and whose basic facts are enshrined in a museum and 33-acre memorial park at the site. While loading the article with countless falsehoods and purging it of crucial facts, he also turned it into an often incomprehensible mess.
    The journalists and academics who know the subject well became disgusted long ago with a system that allows one deeply biased "editor" to revert, without discussion or explanation, every effort to restore established, well-sourced and important facts to the article, facts he killed out earlier. Appeals to WP administrators for help simply led to being sent from one forum to another, with admins either ignoring the appeals or saying they weren't up to dealing with this serious problem. Those of us who are expert on No Gun Ri then decided to let the article fester. This POV pusher's juvenile bullying approach to WP has antagonized and drawn disapproval from dozens of contributors elsewhere. (He has great interest in the subject of guns, and in some imagined threat to the white race called Cultural Marxism). Perhaps the WP community would catch up with him, it was thought. This all is a sad commentary on WP's failures -- thus far.
    I will shortly post separately at Talk: No Gun Ri Massacre, under the heading READER BEWARE, a litany, with diffs, of the incredible run of blanket reverts WeldNeck made over just one period of a few days to kill any effort to restore integrity and truthfulness to the article. I strongly urge all interested parties to study it. You'll see that in his frenzy he even attacks simple efforts to restore sense and syntax to the gibberish.
    If appropriate disclipinary action isn't taken in this case, our hope is that peer reviewers with open eyes and clear heads, who background themselves adequately, might get this editor to calm down and face the facts of history. Many thanks. Charles J. Hanley 13:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)
    Category: