Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 72

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 67
• 68
• 69
• 70
• 71
• Archive 72
• 73
• 74
• 75
• 76
• 77
• 80
• 90
• 100
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

Help with creating maps

I would like to find out about the experience other had in making their own maps, and the best approach suggestions. I have visited the relevant area but there seems to be too much information that does not necessarily relate to military maps. As a side issue, can screen captures from GoogleMaps be used?--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Google Maps material is not freely-licensed by default, so it can't be used on Wikipedia except to illustrate the software itself. Kirill 22:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall detailed military map standards available at the NATO web site. In terms of tools I've played with Map Maker, but no scalable vector graphic (SVG) output. I'm still searching for a good (simple!) general map creation tool. —PētersV (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NATO APP-6 and APP-6A symbols as font character symbols here: http://www.mapsymbs.com/maphome.html —PētersV (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm tinkering with mapping tools and can load available images/databases. What do you need? -- SEWilco (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

G'day SEWilco. I have started a long term project of documenting Red Army operations during WWII. Ideally I would like to be able to have a map for each one with moderate to good level of detail. I estimate a need for the project of some 250 maps. The greatest challenge from my POV is the need for some topographic detail on some maps to illustrate the particular difficulty encountered by troops on either side in some particular operations. This means that the quality needs to be better then a blank map with the odd river and town. I will be able to provide Soviet, and in a more limited way, German maps as a guide, but they are not of high quality in terms of resolution by digital standards if you know what I mean. This would be for the long haul because Ideally it would be good to have a consistent style through the project.-- mrg3105mrg3105 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So just loading and tiling the low-resolution maps won't be enough. I'll have to check what topographic data is available for Europe-Russia/Kamchatka. We should probably move this to WP:WPMAP so others with map awareness can comment. Copy your above questions over there. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will have a look to find the appropriate discussion page to repost to-- mrg3105mrg3105 23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War article might interest someone

The article, and some related ones, have had some problems with various partisans in the past. There's been some good work done on it, but the main article is really not a good read. Deserves some attention from someone who's willing to take on a certain amount of trouble. John Nevard (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for info. Trav (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Needed: Military history of Belgium during World War II

Hi. In looking at Category:Military history of Belgium during World War II it appears that there is no lead article for this. Belgium was a key state in the beginning of the Second World War. If anyone can assist by starting Military history of Belgium during World War II it would fill an important gap. There are many good and reliable sources for this topic. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Needed: Military history of Lithuania during World War II

Hi again. Looking at Category:Military history of Lithuania during World War II, there is no lead article for this. Lithuania was a key battleground state during the Second World War. If anyone can assist by starting Military history of Lithuania during World War II it would help. There are good and reliable sources for this. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Needed: Japanese occupation of the Philippines (1941-1945)

Hi again. The Military history of the Philippines during World War II article is very sketchy and on its page there is a red link for an article about the Japanese occupation of the Philippines (1941-1945) that is still needed. Anyone with and interest or expertise in that topic is welcome to start writing it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Help forming a consenus, regarding civil war in Afghanistan please

Hi guys, I hope this is the right place for this. After an edit was reverted here a debate ensued on the template's talk page here. I'd really appreciate it if a couple of people from the project could take a few minutes of their time to read through it and give an opinion, so we can reach a consensus, cheers :) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Commented there. Kirill 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm stumped!

Does anyone know when the railways were first used for moving troops? Source would also be good :o) You can add to Military railways-- mrg3105mrg3105 00:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were certainly used during the Crimean War ([1]); whether there's anything earlier than that, I'm not sure. Kirill 00:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, darn. That was before the Great Locomotive Chase. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Consensus: Should the USA be listed as combatant in the Iran-Iraq War?

Hi guys, I just thought I should let you know I'm on the fence with this one. Basically a user at the Iran-Iraq War article feels the USA should be listed as a combatant, and a bit of an edit war has ensued between 2 users with a heated debate on the talk page here.

No I've looked up the Military History Project policy here and it states that "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding."

I've boiled it down to a "for" and "against" argument such as;

For: US forces engaged in actually fighting with Iranian forces (e.g. Operation Praying Mantis)

Against: This stands more to confuse reader understanding than improve it 1. This was an 8 year war, the U.S military became involved only at the end, their appearence in the combatant list could lead readers to believe that U.S forces were involved from day one 2. To add the USA because they supported Iraq, would mean you would have to add another 20 countries (see Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990), or you'd be discriminating against the USA.

It would be great if some of you guys could come along, take a few moments to read the talk page and give an opinion. I think a consensus would really cool down the heated debate between these 2 users, cheers :) Ryan4314 (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: This issue has now gone to an RFC, if you would like to comment here's the link. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review for Blackwater Worldwide, please help!

Blackwater Worldwide, an article under this WikiProject, is up for Peer Review to move to Featured Article status. Please help out and offer up reviews, advice, or edits to the article or review at:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Blackwater Worldwide/archive1

Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

help

The featured article Campaign history of the Roman military‎ has been edited by an IP editor several times since he has some fixed ideas what it should look like. I don't think he improved the article and I think his edits are incorrect. All in all, I don't want to be the only jerk reverting his stuff. Feel free to take a look. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Solved the issue by now. I'm a real jerk. Cheers Wandalstouring (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Talk:Waterboarding

Cross-posting this here, as this Wikiproject helps to oversee military-related topics:

Talk:Waterboarding#RfC: Is waterboarding a form of torture, based on sources?

Thank you. Lawrence Cohen 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA for Shibumi2

I've nominated Shibumi2 to become an administrator here. He has been working hard for a year, getting Wikipedia articles on Japanese Navy ships to conform to WP:MILHIST standards. Please join me in supporting his nomination. Thank you! Neutral Good (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, asking for input is fine, but please don't ask people to comment in a particular way. Kirill 20:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

James 'Jamie' Smith

As many of you contributed to the AfD (And I'm lazy and posting this to talk pages would be a total pain) just to let you guys know I proposed that it be merged into Battle of Mogadishu (1993). Narson (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Indian Navy

I'm having a problem getting the importance of using Reliable sources over government propoganda across to an editor who ought to know better, and would rather not fight this battle on my own. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Indian Navy for the full explanation. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look over it in a minute. Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a go-round with the same user months ago, as he could not realise that the Indian Navy was not likely to be an FA (he's tried about four times) if only website sources were used. Since then he's added a list of books, but not used anything from them. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Military rank categories

Please see Talk:Colonel#Red links and comment whether this discussion must be generalized/unified for all military ranks. `'Míkka>t 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence task force item

I'll happily move this discussion to a task force specific page, but I wanted to get broad advice. Om one of the CIA articles I have drafted, the first response was not discussion, but a call for deletion (see CIA Activities by Transnational Topic: Arms Control, WMD, and Proliferation)

Intelligence seems to be a very hot button for some Wikipedians. Some of you will remember that within a very few minutes of putting up the first draft of the article on human source recruiting, an admin speedily deleted it with no discussion. After a AfD discussion, it was put back.

As many of you know, the CIA article had gotten extremely long, and roughly half its content was devoted to alleged (and real) covert action, but rarely with sourcing. A great number of posts about "Operation Gladio" and police training, it developed, came (unsourced) from two books alone.

Now, my approach may be wrong, but I'd rather have too much sourced and coherent prose (the words of the person who wants it deleted), and cut back based on discussion, than immediately call for deletion. As the saying goes, once is random, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action, a saying rather appropriate for this Project. :-) We are now at the coincidence level of two delete-rather-than-discuss events.

How should this apparently controversial area be approached, or is it simply something that cannot be presented in NPOV, and multiple edits, due to emotion about it?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Intelligence task force#Intelligence task force item. Kirill 22:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC: Russia

Not within our coverage, but would really appreciate some extra eyes on this FAC nomination. user:Miyokan, in my view, is not permitting any negative commentary on the country's current state and recent past, for example, in the military sphere, deleting sourced material on conscription problems, dedovschina etc. Examples of problems and attempts to discuss controversial topics can be found on Miyokan's talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, but I just removed a number of items from the CIA Arms Control/Proliferation article, to keep it focused more on the CIA process than the findings. Some of the things I removed (although I kept a copy) included the deterioration of ballistic missiles, both land and submarine. There's a little bit in Nuclear MASINT on the sad state of some of the nuclear-powered ships for which they can't afford maintenance, and are rapidly becoming hazardous. (In a way, I hate to see that. Soviet ships tended to be beautiful). Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The military section does seem to be putting things in the best possible light ("Russia ranks at or near the top of many metrics of military power"). While Russia unquestionably has lots of hardware, much or it is outdated and the actual effectiveness of much of the military is pretty low. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Have pics, need help

(Cross-posting to wikiproject cryptography, wikiproject computer science, and Wikiproject military history)

Over my Christmas vacation, I happened to get out to the National Cryptologic Museum at the NSA. I photographed basically everything in the musuem, (including all the nameplates so that I could later identify the photographs). There's a *LOT* of neat stuff there.

I've uploaded them to commons, and now I need help insterting them into articles and whatnot. You can find the gallery at User:Raul654/favpics/National Cryptologic Museum. Please insert captions into the gallery (red links for any nonexistent articles) and insert the pictures into relevant articles. Raul654 (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a request: Choctaw Nation Medal of Valour --> can someone turn this red link blue? (I have a picture of one in the above gallery) 02:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul654 (talk • contribs)

I can't find a damn thing about that medal, other than incidental mention on rootsweb—frustrating! Its design is unfamiliar, although the text "for service in defense of our land and people" is apparently used by the Navajo Nation Service Medal [2]. The medal resembles this unofficial Navajo flag design, which is said to be based on "a 1980 medallion", but I can't find anything on that either. I would presume the medal to be some sort of recognition for code talkers, but as far as I can tell, the non-Navajo code talkers have not received an official medal, although efforts are underway [3]. Baffling. Maralia (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On a similiar note, Code talker is a mess - it glosses over the world war I code talkers, barely mentions the Comanches at all, etc. It needs to be reorganized by time period, and suborganized by language/theatre. Raul654 (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

When an invasion becomes an occupation

I'm planning to begin work on the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, starting with a move to Indonesian occupation of East Timor, which lasted until 1999. I just wanted to run it by someone here first, insofar as I've gotten no response from WP:INDONESIA. Thoughts, anyone? Is there a guideline for when an invasion becomes an occupation? Most of the info in the article as it is now relates to the occupation as well as the initial invasion, so I don't think a separate article is warranted. Thanks in advance for responses here, on my talk page, or the article's talk. – Scartol • Tok 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way to deal with cases like this is usually to have two articles, one for the invasion itself (i.e. the offensive military operation) and one for the long-term occupation of the region. Is there enough material available to sustain two full articles on the topic? Kirill 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What Kirill said. Calling what Indonesia did in East Timor in 1975 an 'occupation' isn't correct as this suggests that there was little to no resistance. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there enough material available to sustain two full articles on the topic? Not really. I can't imagine a page on just the invasion itself will ever be much of an article (since history books almost always discuss it as a prelude to the occupation), but since the sense I get is that two pages is best, I'll just go ahead and do that. Thanks all. – Scartol • Tok 01:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Invasion is the act of the outside authority entering the territory of another authority and taking control. Occupation is where the legitimate authority is no longer in position to execute its authority, having been replaced by the outside authority (or having been made subservient to the outside authority in the execution of its duties). Resistance to invasion and occupation should be dealt with as a separate issue; neither "invasion" nor "occupation" carries with it any connotations of presence or level of resistance. —PētersV (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi PētersV. Can you source the definition of an invasion? Its not referenced in the article. Most invasions are in fact Offensives, and the occupations are called 'garrisoning' by militaries, though it better represents the view of the people who are opposing the garrisoning of course.

I refer to the etymology of the word which is:

1439, from M.Fr. French: invasion (12c.), from L.L. invasionem (nom. invasio) "an attack, invasion," from L. invasus, pp. of invadere "go into, fall upon, attack, invade," from in- "in" + vadere "go, walk" (see vamoose). Invade is 1491, from invadere. Hence to say that a "invasion was a walk-over" would be to say it twice :o)
I propose the article be moved to Offensive for which there is no article despite the many more Offensives there have been in military history then 'invasions'. The Offensive also happens to be a major Principle of War, so its not just my invention.-- mrg3105mrg3105 07:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between offensive and invasion, which is nicely captured in your own definition "go+in", i.e. moving into someone elses territory. IMHO, an offensive does not need to be an invasion (e.g. the city bombing in WWII was not an invasion,but definitely an offensive). Obviously an invasion will almost always be an offensive. Arnoutf 12:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And if we're to use the most common English expression for our titles, "Indonesian invasion of East Timor" wins hands down. Thanks to all. – Scartol • Tok 13:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confused Arnoutf. Any time one force walks into another territory unopposed, is not called an 'invasion', but an annexation. Any time there is a defence to be overcome, it requires an Offensive Operation. In fact the use of 'invasion arose after the expereince of Crusades when the Crusader troops had to "in wade" from the ships to the shore (the current use is 'to wade in'). Now, are you suggesting that Normandy landings were an 'invasion'?

In actual fact we can't use "Indonesian invasion of East Timor" because its probably something that was made up by one of the English speaking newspapers in big letters for the front page, so we would need to look for copyright :o) It is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to use the "most common" English expression. An encyclopaedia is supposed to inform to a degree somewhat above the 'common' (achievable without reference to Wiki)

The counts for searches certainly confirm your assertion though:

63,600,000 for Invasion

526,000 for Offensive military

However, if you choose to use the lowest common denominator, so be it. I have already created the start of an article for Offensives as I will need one for the more then 150 Operations I will be documenting, most of which have no common name in English, or a misinforming one like 'Invasion of Russia' (Operation Barbarossa).--mrg3105mrg3105 14:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ithink you misunderstand me. I said that most (if not all) invasions are indeed offensive, but that not all offensives need to be invasions. Annexation is something else completely; if an army walks in unopposed and walks out 5 days later that is definitely not an annexation. Arnoutf (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Invasion is a legitimately applicable term. There is a preference on Wikipedia for an article to conform to the "most common" name. Numerous such pages are identified by MILHIST's own MoS guide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that prohibits original research (of course source-based research has occasionally been confused with OR ;-p) and expects content to be verifiable and reliably sourced. Therefore, it is "consensus history" and mainstream interpretation that will consistently be the most acceptable. IMHO, military speak (for want of better terminology) should ideally not be used in preference to descriptive and precise alternatives like battle, siege, invasion, et al, because it can represent the perspective of just one side. Standard titles resemble examples like Battle of Mogadishu (1993), Battle of Normandy, Invasion of Poland (1939), 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and the Occupation of France by Nazi Germany. Offensive, at least in a modern context, arguably denotes to many a concerted attack by one force against another during a conflict/war. Substituting "Offensive" for Invasion of East Timor would likely be divisive and confusing. SoLando (Talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "Invasion" is fairly common as a general way to refer to an entire conflict which consists of one party invading and overrunning another's territory. "Offensive" is somewhat more difficult to use in that context, since the totality of an invasion may consist of multiple separate offensives.

And aside, even, from the modern usage, "invasion" is almost ubiquitous as a term in pre-modern warfare; it would be quite bizarre, in my opinion, to refer to something like the "Gothic offensives against Rome". Kirill 21:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Astronauts

Where do astronauts fall in terms of scope? Going through the assessment drive, I'm running across astronauts, whose notability isn't strictly military but whose military background is relatively significant. Thoughts? UnDeadGoat (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been touched on before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Space: The final (tagging) frontier?, FWIW. Kirill 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! UnDeadGoat (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1345

Hey. This article is part of an effort to get a year article to FA status. It has a lot of medieval military history information that needs looking over. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Wrad (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DAB & NA

This probably might not be the ideal place to ask this question - but I'll ask anyway - what's the difference between a DAB (Disambiguation) and a NA found on the tags? Because lots of tags under the category of "unassessed" have been marked with NA, and some have DAB's on it. Thanks Fattyjwoods (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See #Marking disambiguation pages above; basically, DAB was recently introduced, and NA was deprecated for article-space pages as a consequence. Kirill 08:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See also this question of mine at the drive's talk page. I was confused too. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, helped :) Fattyjwoods (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Shouldn't units be dab'd "4h UK Infantry", per convention, rather than "4h Infantry (UK)"? Trekphiler (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not unless that's the actual name; see WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. Disambiguation, Wikipedia-wide, is generally parenthetical; we take the ambiguous name ("X") and add a disambiguator ("X (Y)"). In most cases, a unit's name doesn't actually include the country name; in other words, the unit is actually the "4th Infantry" rather than the "4th UK Infantry". (There are, of course, exceptions, e.g. the Royal Canadian Regiment, etc.) Kirill 21:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I find that an odd approach, but...sayonara. Trekphiler (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(BTW, Happy New Year y'all.) 01:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Search me

Maybe it's too soon, but I just created a couple of pages & I'm wondering how (if) I can direct/redirect from less-specific names. I searched "McDonnell Gargoyle" & came up dry (tho it's on the Gargoyle dab page). Suggestions? Or just wait awhile? Trekphiler (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The search function uses a cached version of the database, if I recall correctly; new pages don't show up in the results for a while. Creating redirects from the more common alternative names would probably help in any case, though. Kirill 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox military defect?

Hi, i have a problem with the Infobox Military-template. It is used on Military of Denmark and information about the armed forces commander is entered but now showing on the page and i really can't figure out why :(. Could anybody please have a look at this and tell me what i'm missing? K.R. Hebster (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just fixed it. --RenniePet (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah - i didn't consider to check the template for missing lines. I just thought it was me who was doing something wrong. And yes - the Queen is actually formally the Commander in Chief (old stuff that nobody has removed from the danish constitution for some odd reason that i don't know of) though it is administered by the danish primeminister and as long as she doesn't interfere i don't think anyone will change things... Thanks for your fix :) K R Hebster (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with infobox conversion

We currently have a small backlog of deprecated infoboxes that need to be converted to their current equivalents. I've set up a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Infobox conversion which provides details on how to convert each template; it's mostly simple—but repetetive—work. If anyone is feeling bored and would like to do a bit of WikiGnoming, any assistance with carrying out these conversions would be appreciated. Kirill 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag & Assess 2007 - Final Top Twenty

1. Bedford — 7,600

2. TomStar81 — 5,500

3. Parsival74 — 5,200

4. FayssalF — 3,500

5. Roger Davies — 3,000

6. Ouro — 2600

7. Kateshortforbob — 2250

8. Cromdog — 2,200

9. BrokenSphere — 2000

9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000

9. Maralia — 2,000

12. MBK004 — 1,340

13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250

14. Sniperz11 — 1100

15. Burzmali — 1000

15. Cplakidas — 1000

15. Gimme danger — 1000

15. Raoulduke471000

15. TicketMan — 1000

15. Welsh — 1000

15. Blnguyen — 1000

Slightly under 68,000 articles tagged. The Wikis and congratulations go to Gold winner Bedford; Silver winner TomStar81; and Bronze winner Parsival74.

The drive is officially closed now but existing participants can continue tagging if they wish with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. See here.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a workshop here. Comments and feedback from participants and non-particpants alike are both very welcome and appreciated :)

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident now open

The peer review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for News media and the Vietnam War now open

The peer review for News media and the Vietnam War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC for George Jones (RAAF officer)

There is a FAC for this article now open, following a peer review and a successful A-Class review. Comments appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Special reconnaissance now open

The peer review for Special reconnaissance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for United States Naval Special Warfare Command now open

The peer review for United States Naval Special Warfare Command is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What goes where?

Pardon me, but is there a general agreement on what goes where in the following categories and Wiki understanding in brackets (my comment added)?

• Category:War (Wiki - War is any large scale, violent conflict) (Note: IMHO a war is usually between states)
  
• Category:Military conflicts (Wiki - "conflict" can refer to wars, revolutions or other struggles) (Note: IMHO a conflict is almost always something less then a national war)
  
• Category:Military campaigns (Wiki - campaign...a connected series of battles and the maneuvers that support them) (Note: To me a campaign was always equated with strategy, and is therefore the highest purely military echelon of command devoid of political considerations of the above categories)
  
• Category:Military operations (Wiki - operation...a military action (usually in a military campaign) using deployed forces) (Note: This is something that in the 16th-19th centuries was known as Grand Tactical, and is now known as the Operational scope of combat)
  
• Category:Battles (Wiki - battle...a specific instance of combat...battles are the stage on which tactics are employed...well defined in time, space and action)
  

Right?-- mrg3105mrg3105 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as the use of these terms in categories is concerned, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Classifying conflicts. What you have basically matches that guideline, except for the level where "operations" occur. Due to the lack of another suitable term, it was decided to consider wars and campaigns a type of "military operation" when classifying military activities of a certain country or war; so the nesting (for each country) is typically

• Military operations involving X
  • Wars involving X
  • Campaigns involving X
  • Battles involving X
  • (Non-combat operations involving X)
  • (Canceled operations involving X)

and, for a war:

• Y War
  • Military operations of the Y War
    • Campaigns of the Y War
    • Battles of the Y War

(Category:Military conflicts is a holder category for Category:Battles, Category:Military campaigns, and Category:Wars; but it's not broken down systematically [no "Military conflicts involving the United States", etc.], and so tends not to be considered much. The entirety of WP:MILMOS#CONFLICTS is good reading if you're interested in some of the more obscure points of the categorization system.)

Kirill 11:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading the section. However the categorisation of the articles in Eastern Front is entirely inconsistent-- mrg3105mrg3105 13:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's entirely possible; there are many areas where the categorization scheme hasn't ever been fully brought into compliance with the nominal case. Kirill 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

They are? I'll have a look throught them right away.--Phoenix-wiki 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for Category:Soviet-German War. Everything in it can go into Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II and there wasn't a such thing as the Soviet-German war if I recall correctly. Anyway, I've been through a few eastern front articles and categorised them.--Phoenix-wiki 13:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that-- mrg3105mrg3105 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for United States Navy SEALs now open

The peer review for United States Navy SEALs is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident now open

The A-Class review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd looking new article

I just stumbled across American Mutilation of Japanese War Dead in the list of new articles. While this is a valid topic for an article (there can be no doubt that it happened, and wasn't infrequent in some areas/units), I've got an uncomfortable feeling that the article itself is a coatrack article. The article is basically an essay which draws on vague reports of incidents where Japanese soldiers' bodies were mutilated to strongly push an argument that US troops were brutal in 20th century wars in the Pacific and were routinely guilty of war crimes against dead Japanese soldiers.

Moreover, some of the claims in the article seem highly questionable, despite them being cited. As some examples: "Most dead Japanese were desecrated and mutilated" (this is cited, but the reference is a book review and it runs against everything I've ever read on the Pacific War - which is a lot. Given the tropical climate Allied troops generally didn't want to go anywhere near dead Japanese and bodies were swiftly disposed of), "In 1984 Japanese soldiers remains were repatriated from the Mariana Islands. Roughly 60 percent were missing their skulls" (cited, but there's no context given for this - why were the bodies being returned 40 years after the war? How many bodies were returned? Was this an example of the Japanese military custom of returning a body part to Japan rather than the whole body?). "The US has a long history of viewing “colored races” such as Asians and American Indians as inferior, often leading to murderous violence" (cited, but clearly POV and it seems to suggest that the US military has the same ethical standards as the mongol hordes). There's also a quote from John Steinbeck which seems to be being used entirely out of context - I think that he only reported from Europe during the war.

Thoughts? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Start by throughing maintence tags on the page, and put {cn} tags on suspicous statements. I agree that this is valid topic for an article, but the article needs a lot of help if it is going to stay here. If no big improvements to the article materialize in a month or so I would consider an afd for it, although thats just me. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Radar Information

Does anyone know where I can find reliable information on USN radars? I am looking for navigational stuff because FTC Garry commented that most of the fire control stuff is still classified. Any help on the matter would be appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Did a google search and this seems to be a good source of info.--Phoenix-wiki 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And this appears to be an even better source.--Phoenix-wiki 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

New category system needed for WWII eastern front articles

Everything is currently in Category:Soviet-German War, with two subcategories, Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II and Category:Military units and formations of Soviet-German War. I suggest getting rid of everything except Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II, and making that the top level category. If needed we could make a Category:Military units and formations of the USSR during World War II and Category:Military units and formations of Germany during World War II instead of that other one.--Phoenix-wiki 13:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force#New category system needed for WWII eastern front articles. Kirill 14:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Matt Sanchez is a milblogger, conservative columnist, and a Marine reservist. He also appeared in gay porn (in something of a previous life). If / when someone from this project has a bit of time, could the article be reviewed from a military perspective? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No need for now as a request for arbitration has been filed today. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

CIA article issues

All

Grateful for some eyes over at the Central Intelligence Agency article, a bit of a long term POV warrior user has taken it into his head to revert a lot of the improvement work that Howard has done. At the very least it could use some comment on the viability of the version he wants to revert to, IMO it still has significant POV and tin-foil hat issues.

Thanks

ALR (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Any diplomatic suggestions are welcome. I shall share a current link that reassures me that all the tinfoil hats aren't on Wikipedia: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/20/280529.aspx

I was going to give a lovely quote from Henry Kissinger that I put into the 1972 entry for China, but that seems to be offline. Essentially, when Zhou Enlai asked Kissinger if the CIA had tried to kill him in 1955. "As I told the Prime Minister the last time, he vastly overestimates the competence of the CIA."

volume = Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969-1976, Volume E-13, Documents on China, 1969-1972

url = http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e13/72454.htm

title = Memorandum of coversation (Henry Kissinger, Zhou Enlai, and staff)

In the early 1970s, I was a networking contractor at the US Department of Labor, and we were putting in a Comten communications processor. Al Levy, who was then the quite overt chief of networking at CIA, chaired the Comten user group. We'd occasionally visit each others' facilities to look at quite unclassified equipment.

My intuitive sense of direction is pretty good. Al's is not. Invariably, when I visited the Langley computer center, he, my escort, would try shortcuts in that maze of corridors. Invariably, I had to guide my escort back to a known position, after he would get completely lost in his own building. He was also a very smart engineer, but if the communications of the Dark Forces were going to follow his drawings, they couldn't change the regime of a kindergarten.

I am perfectly willing to accept constructive criticism and improvement, but one of the serious problems in the US political system is that the CIA is portrayed as a rogue agency, when declassified documents and interviews show that they were ordered, at White House level, to do something quite inappropriate. I was in another edit battle over the MINARET and SHAMROCK operations, which were run by NSA -- but there is a POV that says it's irrelevant who actually did something, because it must be the fault of the CIA.

From my perspective (e.g., CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific#Indonesia), there are some terrible things with which the CIA was associated, but, ironically, the true attempt at regime change in 1958 failed, but the operation to support anticommunist parts of the Indonesian political system may well have caused the completely unexpected and incredibly bloody military purge of the PKI in 1965. It's worth looking through the intelligence estimates, as well as the operational directives, that I put into that article, and see that the intelligence estimates missed completely on the PKI issue.

One of my concerns with the CIA material is that it appears that some of those objecting to what I've done want only covert action mentioned, apparently believing that mentioning the actual intelligence side is somehow a whitewash. For the record, if I'm the person being mentioned, I have never worked for the CIA, or on a contract for them. Yes, I've worked with CIA people, all on the intelligence or technology side, almost always unclassified at the time. The one area where I dealt with anything classified, which is now declassified, dealt with technical sensors for detecting people in jungle, and, in particular, if they had handled weapons. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't tend to do diplomatic, but when I get some time (potentially not until Sunday PM-Zulu), I'll put some thought into comments.

ALR (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Franco-Prussian War now open

The peer review for Franco-Prussian War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC in an article supported by this project has been opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious account

Please keep an eye on this. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Finding the code

Does anyone see the code in the MACV-SOG article that makes the top header blue? The color is not really following the MoS. --MoRsE (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean; which header? Usually, a blue header means that something is a link when it shouldn't be; but I don't see anything like that in the article. Kirill 22:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Blue header.jpg

File:Marked header.jpg

that is strange, it is showing up blue in my Firefox browser, but not in IE. Further, when I mark the header, you can see that the text is overlapping. To illustrate the point: --MoRsE (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's bizarre. Are you sure it's not something in your CSS? Does this or this article have the same problem? Kirill 23:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, now it took a turn for the stranger, the first one is blue and the second one green. My .css is untouched, and I did some changes in my .js page, but it shouldn't affect this. ??? ;-| --MoRsE (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I think the .js script is generating those assessment buttons is probably also changing the color to match the current assessment level; you'd need to ask its author to make sure, though. Kirill 00:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)