Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements Tranche XXIV of the WikiProject coordinators has been elected. The October 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 German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Otto Hahn • Boot Monument • Roswell incident • Busbridge War Memorial • Battle of Big Black River Bridge • Khalji Revolution Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Isaac Brock • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Lockheed YF-22 • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr. Peer reviews 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Sark • Battle of Chunj • War of the Antiochene Succession Good article nominees Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Dabney Coleman • Crusading movement • Black and Tans • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • Federalist No. 29 • Mongol invasion of Khorasan • HMS Sheffield (C24) • Ian Morrison (RNZAF officer) • Charles the Bold • James Alexander Ulio • Central Powers • Mordechai Schlein • Short Sunderland in New Zealand service Good article reassessments Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • Hans-Ulrich Rudel Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,910) • only work on referencing and citation (43,225) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,291) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,909) • work on structure (31,993) • only work on structure (341) • work on grammar (8,266) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (33,046) • only work on supporting materials (1,290) • assessment (130) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (15) • assessment checklists completed (96) • task forces added (7) • attention to task force coverage (654)

Requests for project input

Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight RfC

There's a discussion at Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#RfC_–_In_the_article_section_about_"Haifa",_should_the_following_paragraph_be_added? about whether specific prose attributed to Benny Morris should be added to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 07:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Siege of Gerona (disambiguation)

An editor has requested that Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

FAR for Rudolf Vrba

I have nominated Rudolf Vrba for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#Requested move 27 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#Requested move 27 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Module:Infobox military conflict has an RfC

Module:Infobox military conflict has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jay D. Easy (t) 17:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for input at Talk:World War III

I would appreciate input or suggestions at Talk:World War III#War on terror as WWIV about whether the section Extended usage of the term should mention that the War on terror is sometimes called WW IV. Sjö (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Prisoners of war in World War II

I recently created a draft for Prisoners of war in World War II after I noticed that there was an article on the subject on French and German Wikipedia. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Saint-Inglevert Airfield

An issue has been raised at talk:Saint-Inglevert Airfield which members of this WP may be able to resolve. Please feel free to voice your opinions. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My rewrite edit of Wikipedia’s Bombardment of Greytown page

I have done an expansive rewrite edit of Wikipedia’s Bombardment of Greytown page on that page’s talk page.

There, I had learned that: “This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Military history: Maritime / British / European C‑class.”

I invite anyone associated with WikiProject: Military history to read my attempt to improve upon this Start-class article and to comment.

Thank you.

Will-DubDub Will-DubDub (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Input needed for consensus on articles

There's current discussion on Talk:War of 1812 and Talk:War of the Sixth Coalition due to disagreement with co-belligerent inclusion and the degree of relation of the two conflicts. I encourage you to pop in and join the discussion/add your input so we can reach a consensus one way or the other. Thanks! AvRand (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of World War II flying aces

Feedback from the larger community would be helpful. In essence, there are three topics to agree upon and to be discussed:

• Size, structure and content of this list
• Merging of two lists with similar scope
• Renaming the article

Please pitch in. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

RAF Chicksands merge proposal

An article that the project have been involved in editing—RAF Chicksands—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Gavbadger (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we add any of the U.S. Labor Wars (especially the Coal Wars) to the List of wars involving the United States?

List of wars involving the United States

Not sure if we should count them or not? I'm having a hard time with this one. On the one hand we could consider them as regular conflicts like the List of conflicts in the United States. Although the top of this list does not say wars, it says the US was involved in 113 military conflicts. But it does not stop short of conflicts outside the USA, because it includes Bleeding Kansas. It does seem to stop short of wars where the U.S. military is not involved, but then again the U.S. miliary could be said to include the U.S. miliary on two points. 1. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry did involve the U.S. military, and 2. it involved them as Bleeding Kansas bleed into the Civil War (pun intended).

So in like manner should we open up this list to the Coal and Labor wars where the U.S. military fought in? Here is a few key ones to consider The Coal Wars (think of the Battle of Blair Mountain), the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, the 1811 German Coast Uprising.

Many of them included the national guard at the very least, If we stop there what about Shays' Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, or Fries's Rebellion?

If we went this route, maybe we should only include the Labor Wars, Rebellions, and Slave Rebellions where the United States military fought in.

So for example we would not include Slave rebellions such as the 1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation?

Also if we do the Coal Wars should we divide them up based off of Wars involving the U.S. Military or just leave them as the Coal Wars in general and adjust the dates and casualties based on all the Coal Wars combined where the USA fought? My hunch is no since we did not do this with the Banana wars or the American Indian Wars, but its fine with me either way.

Thanks. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say leave them out. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm could be convinced either way of doing that. But what would be the reasons for leaving them in or leaving them out, for reasons explained above.

Tell me your thoughts please, if you will. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

For one thing, the National Guard isn't the US military per se, especially during the time period most of these incidents occurred. There's also the very basic point that these were not declared wars or conflicts. And if you're basing it off National Guard involvement (which to be clear I do not agree with), where do you draw the line? National Guards from various states have been committed in times of civil unrest or natural disasters. Do you count civil unrest? If so, to what level?

And in at least some of these cases, the conflict didn't directly involve actual Federal troops. In some cases their arrival actually put an end to the conflict. You'd also have to include some of the railroad conflicts that occurred in the later 1800s, since some of those involved militia...the precursor to the National Guard.

It's a slippery slope, and one I don't think we need to be messing with. Intothatdarkness 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"For one thing, the National Guard isn't the US military per se, especially during the time period most of these incidents occurred."

This actually is the most compelling reason I have heard. Hmmmm not sure honestly. I double checked and "In 1933, with the passage of the National Guard Mobilization Act, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States, a newly created federal reserve force."

As I understand it the National Guard by itself refers to an individual state national when it is acting as the state military/militia while the National Guard of the United States refers to the national guard acting as Federal military or when it is referring to all state, district, and territorial guards as a whole.

I think this is actually a convincing baseline for all future wars/conflicts.

The parameters as they seem to historically have been are

1:is it "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." (this is the oxford definition of war).

2:Did the U.S. military actually follow it.

In the case of the National guard I actually would say that for articles to be featured on the list as wars they would 1. the Battle/War would have to take place in 1933. 2. They would have to be Federalized and not used in a State capacity unless Federalized and/or paired with the U.S. military.

As far "civil unrests" are concerned. I think for it to be a civil unrest or riot then the antagonist against the US military would have to not just be a riot, but an armed and organized fight or rebellion. I think we actually could define the Coal Wars and many of the Labor wars as such or at least most of them, but we cannot call them a War fought by the United States given that the National guards were not federalized.

I would have included the Harlan County War since the the National Guard Mobilization Act was passed in 1933 and this coal war ended in 1939, but I would not because to my knowledge the Kentucky National guard were never federalized.

"There's also the very basic point that these were not declared wars or conflicts" Eh I would not use that argument only, because then the list would literally be reduced to 5 wars, since there are actually only 5 wars that the US actually declared. The American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, WW1, and WW2. That being said you have convinced me on the former points.

What do you guys think? Slatersteven Horse Eye's Back Intothatdarkness

Under these guidelines I do not think we could include Shays' Rebellion or Fries's Rebellion, since only milita fought in this one. However, we could include the the Whiskey Rebellion and some slave Rebellions such as Nat Turner's Rebellion, but not the German Coast Uprising.

Should we maybe add a note on this on the list? What do you guys think. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I remain opposed to their inclusion. You might want to do some more research on the National Guard as well. There is a distinction between National Guard and the handful of state militias that exist (both in terms of funding and other areas). National Guard units can be used/activated by states without being called into Federal service (commonly done for natural disaster relief operations) but when called into Federal service they can be sent overseas (common since World War II). Intothatdarkness 15:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"I remain opposed to their inclusion. You might want to do some more research on the National Guard as well. There is a distinction between National Guard and the handful of state militias that exist (both in terms of funding and other areas). National Guard units can be used/activated by states without being called into Federal service (commonly done for natural disaster relief operations) but when called into Federal service they can be sent overseas (common since World War II). "

I do not disagree with you on the National Guard point. Your point was both well illustrated and valid. I did some reviewing and the only labor war I am aware of that included U.S. troops fighting is the West Virginia coal war specifically the Battle of Blair Mountain. And as of now. That is the only one I would personally consider including.

Though I am confused as to why you would not include the Whiskey rebellion and Nat Turner Rebellion. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As do I, this changies nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Slatersteven (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but then what are the reasons for no. Mind you I will ask the same person this if they say yes we should. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

They may be called wars, but are they more "warish" than any other violent labour dispute? Reads too American-centric. Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you expand upon "warisah" I do not know this word. Do you mean like sort of a quasi war maybe, because it is more of a labor dispute?

I agree with you some wars are smaller than others, but then I would ask what do we define as a war for these articles? There are several wars on here that are small in scope and this is not unique to the United States. For example look at the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

The Oxford dictionary defines a war as "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." By this definition the Coal Wars could be included or at least the ones that involved fighting with the United States military, which actually involved several of them.

For example the Battle of Blair Mountain, where literally tens of thousands of men fought.

As I stated above, based off the history of this list, it seems like we are only counting wars where the United States fought in so I can see the point in not including those specific coal and labor wars, or else people would probably include American feuds Category:Feuds in the United States such as the infamous Hatfield–McCoy feud which were blood battles and wars fought between private groups not concerning the Unites States or gang wars such as the Tong Wars or Castellammarese War. Not I am not at all suggesting we add Feuds and Gang wars, I am just using them as a point of differentiation between these conflicts and wars involving the United States military including the coal wars. Unless there is another qualifier I am missing here. Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What I mean was are these any more wars than any other violent labour dispute, so do we list all of those as wars, or just American ones? Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a compelling reason to include any of them, regardless of national origin. Intothatdarkness 12:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"What I mean was are these any more wars than any other violent labor dispute, so do we list all of those as wars, or just American ones?"

If it is "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." and it can be substantiated the Nation of that government fought against them and the opposing side was fighting them then yes. But not as a demonstration or a riot. The Battle of Blair Mountain is a good example, because it was a shooting war. But as Johnbod pointed out that in these wars the National Guard were not federalized troops.

I would still regard the coal wars as Wars, but not one in which the U.S. government fought in. It would have to be under a state's induvial list of wars if one can be made for a U.S. State.

If in the case of England if the Peterloo Massacre was not a peaceful and the protestors actually fought against the British military in a battle then I would classify it as being a war. If it was fought between the workers of Peterloo and lets say a County militia/military then I would count it as a war too, but just not one fought by the national government if that makes sense. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you just have a different definition of war than the field of history and your fellow wikipedia editors? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Just using the dictionary definition. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A very literal interpretation, which doesn't really square with the historiography of military history or war studies in general. Most of the US cases you're listing are usually discussed either as part of labor history or in the context of misuse or overreach of the use of the US military in a domestic context. Including them in the list of wars is inappropriate. Intothatdarkness 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I would not inherently disagree with your point. However no one has produced a definition as of yet. There are several wars on the list already including Bleeding Kansas, the Pig War, and Operation Ocean Shield which may or may not fit in with a standard definition of war as others have suggested.

If a more concrete definition can be established I am all ears. But as of now there is no official stipulation about what constitutes a war on this list other than it involve US military forces. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think at this point you're starting to bludgeon the whole thing. You're the only one supporting adding the labor conflicts, and the only evidence provided is a basic dictionary definition of war. Bleeding Kansas is considered a lead-in to the Civil War by most, if not all, authorities on the subject, so it can't really be treated in isolation as you seem to suggest. And in most of the labor conflicts, the presence of the US military is more tertiary. Intothatdarkness 18:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"You're the only one supporting adding the labor conflicts" Hmmmmm perhaps you are correct. I do believe that the majority should rule here.

"the only evidence provided is a basic dictionary definition of war" Maybe so but I do not believe the burden of proof is on me here, as the list itself provides others examples for my point. I still think that at the very least Blair Mountain should be included.

On Bleeding Kansas however the only time the U.S. military got involved that I am aware of was during the raid on Harpers Ferry. And although there was casualties on the U.S. military side this was tertiary compared to state militia. A lead into the Civil War does not equal a war (not including the dictionary definition).

The Pig War directly involved the U.S. military, but there were no deaths or injuries.

And we cannot include Operation Ocean Shield or else we would have to include military operations against Pirates in the Caribbean and Greece. The Barbary wars are an exception since of course the Barbary states were also nation states.

But again I will concede your point, if nothing else for majority rules. Though I think I will give it a month and then I will start a new topic on the subject of defining our terms (on wars) and removing Bleeding Kansas, the Pig War, and Operation Ocean Shield and others and/or adding the Nat Turner and Whiskey Rebellions.

(Of course not saying we will add or remove anything, I am just saying I will open the discussion).

I am sincerely sorry if I made you or anyone else personally upset, that is not my intention. Though I would argue I have done nothing inherently wrong and the subject is worth talking about. But I think I am following the Wikipedia spirit of both being bold, and a team player by not making any major changes to the list without consulting the group as a whole. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually military operations in Bleeding Kansas have been studied as examples of early "peacekeeping operations," since the intent was to prevent hostilities through the presence of troops. And if anything, the list should possibly be reduced instead of expanded. Intothatdarkness 19:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"Actually military operations in Bleeding Kansas have been studied as examples of early "peacekeeping operations," since the intent was to prevent hostilities through the presence of troops. And if anything, the list should possibly be reduced instead of expanded."

I mean fair enough. I can see that how that could be the case. I just don't see why it's inherently on this list considering other definition of wars. Or some of the other wars here. Since other than Harpers Ferry there were no other battles.

Can it be considered a peacekeeping operation if it is peacekeeping American citizens? (Sincere question.)

I think you maybe your proving my point is that we should indeed have a talk about the wider parameters on the list. To either reduce it or expand it, or a bit of both and more thoroughly define our terms. Maybe Bleeding Kansas should be kept and some of the others dropped. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it can...because the main purpose of peacekeeping operations writ large is to prevent or minimize open conflict. And at the time there was precious little in terms of civilian law enforcement in either Kansas or western Missouri, and what was there was considered corrupt or biased to one degree or another. The military already had a presence in Kansas due to the Indian Wars, so it was simply a matter of adjusting the existing mission.

Frankly, I find that list a bit of a mess (like many lists on Wikipedia), but I would lean more toward shrinking it instead of expanding it to include every incident where there might have been a US military member within ten miles. Intothatdarkness 20:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. I am not inherently against shrinking it or expanding, so long as the terms are clearly defined for a common basis. Does not matter so much to me if we included peacekeeping operations in that definition.

I will include your peacekeeping operation point as a detail when I start the new topic next month. I will link you to the post so you can get an instant notification if you would like.

"Frankly, I find that list a bit of a mess (like many lists on Wikipedia), but I would lean more toward shrinking it instead of expanding it to include every incident where there might have been a US military member within ten miles."

We can see what the majority think on it later. If minority does not like it they can always create their own list with specific parameters. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

In general I would say keep it tight, if its only kind of war (coal war, timber war, cola war) I would exclude it. Just because it has war in the name doesn't mean it needs to be included. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. Like I said to Slatersteven I definitely would not include the Tong Wars or Hatfield-McCoy feud, because they were gang wars and feuds not involving the united states military. And I would not include the Cola wars since those were just a business feud and the Timber Wars had more to do with Timber Pirates (not sure if the USA actually fought them or not. I think the U.S.S. Michigan encountered them once, but I have not studied them too closely yet.

But unlike the Tong Wars, Hatfield-McCoy feud, and Timber Wars, the battles that were fought in them did not include the U.S. military that I am aware of. Where as many of the coal wars did.

Perhaps if we include them at all we should only include the Coal Wars where the United States military fought? Or we should include key battles like Blair Mountain and just have it under the header as (part of the coal wars)? What do you think? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Why only US ones, why not the Peterloo Massacre or the 1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike? Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting point. I mean those would not fit in the List of wars involving the United States, however I do think we could place the Peterloo Massacre in the List of wars involving the United Kingdom. Not the 1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike though, because the strike did not include a UK military presence that I am aware of, only police. Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Ooooh but then again looking at Peterloo this seems like more of a peaceful demonstration then a war. If the people at Peterloo fought back against the British Military I think that would make more sense. Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It still wouldn't be a war... These simply are not wars. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• No. Even when there was some violence, "war" is used only as a metaphor. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm I respectfully disagree good sir. The Coal wars had a number of battles in them. For example the Battle of Matewan and the Battle of Blair Mountain especially which involved tens of thousands of men. Oxford defines a war as "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."

  That being said @Intothatdarkness made an extremely compelling reason from a different angel. In that he pointed out that during these wars none of the National Guard who fought in it were actually Federalized into the U.S. military at that time. And since this is more focused on wars fought by the U.S. military and not states as individuals that is a more compelling argument. I think we are starting to move away from that argument and now asking if we should include the Whiskey Rebellion or specific slave rebellions involving the U.S. military for example the Nat Turner Rebellion. Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Neither the Battle of Matewan or the Battle of Blair Mountain are really battles... The first is a simple shootout between non-governemnt parties, and the second is more a one sided police actions that is called a battle because the pro-business forces won the larger political wrangling about them, if labor had won it would be called a massacre. Same for the "Coal war" its only a war in metaphor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully it depends on how you define a battle.

Oxford defines a battle as "a hostile engagement between opposing forces on land or sea; a combat a fight."

Webster defines it as "to engage in combat between individuals or armed forces : to engage in battle". " The first is a simple shootout between non-governemnt parties," A shootout is just a smaller battle. And a war does not need to include nations to be considered a war. Its just a different kind of war.

For example the Castellammarese War was indeed a war fought by non state actors. That being said the argument does not matter as we are focusing on wars fought by the Unites States military for this list.

"one sided police actions that is called a battle because the pro-business forces won the larger political wrangling about them, if labor had won it would be called a massacre. Same for the "Coal war" its only a war in metaphor." Eh actually it was pointed out to me that the U.S. Army not just the militia did fight in this war. And even if a war is one sided that does or is a massacre that does not mean it is not a battle. For it to be massacre by itself it would have to imply that the other side cannot fight back. Wounded Knee was indeed a massacre, but they were able to fight back.

Not sure you could even say Blair Mountain was a massacre as the miners killed 30 company men and 4 army soldiers. One side had 10,000 and the other had 30,000, but both had machine guns. Although the Army did bring in bombers with both gas and bombs.

A metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable", but people actually fought and died in these wars. But it seems to me that the West Virginia coal war is the only one that I know of where Federalized U.S. military troops ever fought. Maybe though only the Battle of Blair mountain should be included on the list and not the full war. Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I find your logic peculiar and remain unconvinced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I mentioned to Intothatdarkness I am willing to concede the point if nothing else, because I believe the majority should rule as this list does not belong to any one person.

Though as I told him. I think I will give it a month and then post a new topic on adding a more thorough definition to what we consider a war for the list. That way we can give this page more structure as to what should or should not be included.

As I think a good argument could be made that we should consider removing Bleeding Kansas, the Pig War, and Operation Ocean Shield and others and/or adding the Nat Turner and Whiskey Rebellions. I say this because it seems that in this discussion that besides the basic dictionary definition of wars, there are a few other definitions (though so far undefined) that would disqualify or qualify some of these wars/conflicts/etc.

(Of course not saying we will add or remove anything, I am just saying I will open the discussion). I think it will be helpful moving forward. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

People are killed in riots as well, including when militia or national guard or even army soldiers act with force to put down violent agitation about one or two domestic issues. I agree that war is used as a metaphor in these cases. Even the Whiskey Rebellion, which was a violent tax protest, which dissolved when Washington himself led the militia to put down the "rebellion". It was a vehement and somewhat violent protest against the tax which the protesters refused to pay (at first), not a war. Also, as the article states: "The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation." None of these civil disorders, riots or protests, even if some peope died, which weree due to a single domestic issues or a few issues qualify as a war. Given the broad sweep of the military history project, these disturbances involving any branch of the military do come within the topics that qualify for listing and assessment by the project. That does not make them "wars" as usually understood and they should not be listed as such. Donner60 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

When a unit changes name

Firstly, let's distinguish between what I would describe as a simple change of name; i.e. when 57 Fighter Squadron (57 FS) becomes 57 Tactical Fighter Squadron (57 TFS), in a process that probably involves hundreds of units doing the same thing. I don't have a problem with this, although unit histories detailing that unit X was disbanded on one date, and unit Y created two weeks later, does have an unfortunate side effect of cluttering up an article with date trivia.

However, there is a second instance which is more problematic. If 100 squadron, flying fighters out of Little Piddington, Worcestershire, then morphs into 629 squadron, flying heavy bombers out of somewhere in Italy, as I see it, the 100 squadron article stops dead at that point.

Alternatively, if the 40th Bombardment Squadron is re-designated the 4th Antisubmarine Squadron along with a change of Command, Wing, aircraft and base, how can it be the same unit? But that's not the end; this unit was disbanded, and re-activated 14 years later as 24th Tactical Missile Squadron (new Command, Wing, base, and no aircraft, just missiles). Again, how can that be the same unit in terms of this Wikipedia article? But that's not the end either; the 24th TMS was inactivated, and the personnel & assets spread around. Two years later it is re-activated, this time as the 74th Air Defence Missile Squadron, at a new base, in a different country, and meh, whatever. But that's still not quite the end of it; out of some kind of magicians hat, the 40th Bombardment Squadron, the unit we started with, suddenly re-appears and is consolidated with it's own grand-daughter and great-grand-daughter, the 24th TMS and the 74th ADMS. Thankfully, they all appear to be inactive units, so it was just a paper-exercise. I pride myself on being able to tease out relevant detail from some other editor's mixed-up story, but this one has me beat. Worryingly, I fear it is an accurate portrayal of how the USAF see this unit's history.

Now, you can, quite correctly, suggest that the proper place for this discussion is the relevant article talk-page. But I suspect it is just the tip-of-an-iceberg. I'm looking for some kind of general discussion regarding units folding into each other, merging, or just re-appearing with a whole new identity, role, personnel and equipment. This is less about RAF or USAF internal re-organisations, and more about how should Wikipedia handle it?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

USAF unit history is often an exercise in smoke and mirrors as you mention. They like to tack lineage onto new units, and examples abound. It's not just inactive units, either. They do it with active units as well. As for how Wikipedia should handle the issue...that's a good question. Internal links to squadrons/wings past and present is a good start, because that lets interested people track a unit's history without getting bogged down in a massive article with tons of confusing name/designation changes noted as sub-sections. This would also let us track the inevitable reshuffling of lineage that often occurs with USAF units (not sure about RAF) without redoing articles or having to mess with a bunch of redirects. Intothatdarkness 16:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

For the US Army at least, we have an entity that tracks and maintains the official lineages of units. I'm not sure if the USAF (or RAF) has the same. However, I would not say that changing significant aspects of a unit's operational role acts to sever the lineage of the unit. For example, my former unit is currently known as Troop C, 1st Squadron, 153rd Cavalry Regiment. However just 20 years ago, we were Company A, 3rd Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment. We were briefly in 1963, Company C, 261st Engineer Battalion (Combat). Before that, we were Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 1st Armored Rifle Battalion, 124th Infantry, 48th Armored Division. And if you go all the way back to our founding in 1857 we were a cavalry troop again. All of this is a clear, unbroken line of lineage. So there's definitely precedent for lineage to remain present through reorganizations at the Division/Corps level; and there's precedent for the same through changes in branch (Air Force equivalent would be changing aircraft type). The only thing that did not change for us was basing (which we can point to myriad of other examples of units retaining their lineage through BRACs and other basing changes). So of the categories that you've given: command/wing, aircraft, and base, there is at least some degree of precedent for all of these things changing without losing the unit's underlying lineage. As to how that appears on Wikipedia, ultimately our responsibility is to report what reliable sources say, not to synthesize results for ourselves. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester Thanks for your input - I confess I struggled to follow all of the detail, maybe because I am not ex-service myself. Taking just one aspect of your unit's history, I see the change from cavalry to infantry as just a change of equipment. IIRC in 'Nam, the 7th Cavalry went into action riding in UH-1 Huey's, and that's ok.

Where I find myself struggling is when a unit is disbanded, and the equipment, the personnel, and indeed the task they performed, are all scattered to the four winds, absorbed into other units. Then, out of some kind of magic hat, two years later the unit is supposedly reformed, without any former personnel, with totally different equipment, and a totally different role. Where is the link, except on paper?

Your final point is valid too; Wikipedia must report what reliable sources say, and in this situation there is only one source to be considered, and unfortunately it is a primary source, the military themselves. But perhaps Wikipedia should ring-fence the activities and history of certain military units, with only a brief comment to cover the many instances where there is a broken and disjointed alleged lineage?WendlingCrusader (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're mistaken about the difference between cavalry and infantry. It's not simply a change of equipment. It's a change of mission set, and in some cases, MOS. The mission of the infantry is to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver to destroy, capture, or repel an assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack. The mission of the cavalry is to conduct reconnaissance and security operations in close contact with enemy organizations and civilian populations. These are two distinct mission sets, much how air superiority and strategic bombing are two different mission sets. In both cases, they inform the structure, the capabilities, and the format of the unit. The "change of equipment" is a result of the change in mission, role, and organization. The reasons why units are seemingly disbanded and reformed often have nothing to do with their lineage and much more to do with organizational concerns and restructuring. For instance, a base may be closed or a unit may be realigned as a result of political infighting during a round of BRAC. A change in the overall structure of the force (for instance, in the Army example that could be the shift to the Pentomic army in the 1950's that prompted the creation of the Combat Arms Regimental System, the shift to the Army Regimental System in the 80's, the establishment of the 10-division army system, etc.) can result in units shifting around, deactivating and reactivating as necessary to support the overall mission. That's why it's up to the service historians to determine whether the lineage remains unbroken, and as previously mentioned, for us to rely on what reliable sources say rather than trying to figure it out for ourselves.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It may be helpful to look at an Air Force example. You mentioned the 24th Tactical Missile Squadron. They began as the 40th Bombardment Squadron (Medium) flying the B-18 in an anti-submarine warfare role. They then redesignate as 4th Antisubmarine Squadron, reflective of their mission; this redesignation is triggered as part of the reorganization of the 1st Air Force eliminating the 13th Bombardment Group, and also involves a reassignment of their parent unit from I Bomber Command to Army Air Forces Antisubmarine Command. All of this so far is very much akin to what happens all the time in a BRAC, or a Brigade-level realignment in the Army. But by the 1950's, the ASW mission becomes dominated by the U.S. Navy, not the Air Force -- which begins to fight a service-level rivalry with the Army over the missile domain. This results in a redesignation to the 24th Tactical Missile Squadron. Now if we pause here, we can note that both the 24th TMS, *AND* the receiving units of it's ASW mission (within the Navy) carry on the lineage of the 40th Bombardment Squadron. However one of those branches has now shifted it's role from ASW to tactical cruise missile fires. So the 24th TMS is now operating the Matador cruise missile, our first cruise missile and at the time was the "new hotness" of the forces. The Korean war has just ended, and the need for missile batteries in the theater is high. So it gets deployed to Korea. The USAF appears to have done a bit of an organizational shuffle here -- the 310th Fighter-Bomber Sqdn. was already stationed at Osan, and the USAF apparently wants it to shift from an F-86 squadron to a Matador squadron. So, they combine and condense several units together, which gets the missiles of the 24th TMS into Osan, and presumably streamlines some organization for the USAF. However, shortly thereafter, the Mace missile came online in Okinawa and obsoleted the Matador, eliminating this need for a Matador squadron in South Korea. So the Matador units deactivate. A bit later, they are reactivated with a new mission -- air defense, as a surface-to-air missile unit. The Air Force and the Army are still squabbling over the missile and missile defense missions, but at this point the USAF still is maintaining a forward deployed air defense capability and hasn't yet ceded the majority of that mission to the Army. So this time, our unit has been redesignated as the 74th Air Defense Missile squadron, operating the BOMARC SAM, which would turn out to be the only long-range SAM the USAF ever operates. When those are deactivated in 1972, as best as I can tell, the lineage of the 24th TMS (dating back through the 40th Bombardment Squadron) ends. However, let's now look in comparison at the 310th Fighter-Bomber Squadron in Osan -- remember back when our unit was becoming a Matador squadron? The 310th has it's own lineage which dates back to it's early days as the 310th Fighter Squadron, a training and replacement unit, carries through a couple of redesignations, and persists today (again as the 310th Fighter Squadron) doing F-35 training out of Luke AFB. So what you get is two parallel lineage tracks, that briefly overlap, and one of which has an offshoot into the Navy. All of these redesignations and reassignments appear to clearly have had a reason which allows us to trace the pathway and evolution of that lineage through time. I know that's all confusing, but I hope the examples help clarify a bit. Sometimes what's not obvious to civilians is more obvious to veterans and historians who know what additional context to look for in order to find those links. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate the time you have taken, especially to focus on a subject that I raised originally, but you are correct - this civilian does not understand. And to save us arguing pointlessly over the huge holes in the explanation above, I'm going to step away from this. Go in peace, my friend. WendlingCrusader (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The broken lineage is very common with US units. And the Air Force does have an organization that tracks and assigns unit lineage, but they are much more...fluid...with it than the Army. In either case it's not unusual for the link between an old and new unit to exist only on paper. In many cases the lineage is constructed to preserve what's considered an historically-significant unit. Trying to make sense of some of it will just give you a headache, honestly. Intothatdarkness 12:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Lineagegeek Yes, in many cases the lineage is constructed or reconstructed to continue or recontinue a historically significant unit. See the Air Force Historical Research Agency. That's pretty much the point of tying these lineages together. They have no resemblance to what happened to X Squadron at Y Base which may have been redesignated Z, A, and then B.. the lineage runs through the historically significant designation, not a particular air force organism. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you pinged Lineagegeek here as they haven't participated in the discussion. Intothatdarkness 15:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Because he does primarily USAF unit lineages and he will quote you the rules and the actual practice - and their inconsistencies - in chapter and verse. Take a look at his talkpage and contributions. He has more expertise in this area than anyone who has contributed above, including me. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with their work, yes. And I'm also quite familiar with USAF lineage stuff in both theory and practice. However, an extended discussion on that didn't seem relevant to the original question as posed by the OP: how this kind of thing could be dealt with in a Wikipedia article. Intothatdarkness 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with his interpretation of USAF lineage rules, and the way he has applied them here, WP is based upon Reliable Sources. He knows those reliable sources which have been repeatedly applied here and accepted, very well. If I was wanting to examine the OP's question, drawing on people who know the terrain, I would seriously consider going directly to his talkpage and seeking his input. That does not mean you have to accept or agree with it!!

Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Buckshot06

I have decided that this is a Lesser spotted Tree Duck, which is directly descended from a Camel. And because I am a reliable source, you have to agree with me.

Thank you - I have been reading your input(s), but kept away from the discussion until I had something more to add. Lineagegeek seems to be the person to contact in certain respects, undoubtedly an expert in this field, but as you can see from my convo with Swatjester above, someone who is intimately familiar with the subject is not necessarily the best person to see it from an outside perspective.

Yes, in many respects the USAF themselves are the best source, although I have seen so many errors in their published material that it makes me smile. To err is human, and it's good to see that they are very much human. But that digression apart, whilst the USAF/Army/Navy are entitled to name anything they so wish, apart from recording that fact here on Wikipedia, surely we should place it in context. In terms of lineage, I am looking for something to the effect of

The USAF has decided to apply the following lineage to this current unit;.

Then at least the readers can make their own minds up as to whether it is even remotely relevant.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the convo above. I carefully laid out the reasoning and context behind why some seemingly random redesignations were actually easily attributed to broader service-wide decisions that may not be immediately obvious, and reiterated that ultimately what matters are what reliable sources say. I think someone approaching it from an "outsiders perspective" might wish to hesitate before declaring nuanced things as being "errors", particularly when they themselves are making basic errors and mistaken assumptions about a subject they admittedly do not understand. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear WendlingCrusader, I completely agree with you and I wish I had thought of that formulation five years ago. As you will see at Talk:Ninth Air Force (2009-2020) I have had arguments with Lineagegeek Bwmoll3 touching on that kind of subject. I hope you do not mind if I start rolling out your formulation wording to the 1st Fighter Wing - 99th Air Base Wing without any delay.

You will see that I have tried an initial wording "The U.S. Air Force Historical Research Agency has determined [that the 99 ABW is descended etc]" at 99th Air Base Wing.

"Despite the fact that the Nevada Test and Training Range (military unit) is not designated a "wing," the U.S. Air Force Historical Research Agency has determined/decided that the history of the NTTR can be traced to the 98th Bombardment Group, a [...]"

I also completely agree on your avian identification and I believe the Lesser Spotted Tree Duck is/is not directly descended from the Sopwith Camel because, clearly, Jane's All the World's Aircraft said so in the 1921 edition. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Should the U.S. be considered a combatant in the Israel-Hamas war, in the infobox?

Hello Project Military History. Advertising this discussion to a wider audience, on a use case of the "conflicts" infobox - should the U.S. be considered a combatant in the Israel-Hamas war, in the infobox?

Thanks. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

No, in the way the US was not considered an actual combatant in the Vietnam War for some time, although the CIA was definitely never involved, ever. All to do with grunts on the ground and body bags coming home with full military honors, I believe. Proxy wars, etc. MinorProphet (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

With the deployment of a U.S. THAAD battery, staffed by U.S. troops to the region -- a uniformed, conventional forces, combat arms branched element tasked with the mission of providing defensive fires (THAAD interceptors) -- one could make a colorable argument that the U.S. is a now a combatant. But the correct place to seek and achieve that consensus is on the Israel-Hamas war page, which is so tainted with toxicity and drama that I'm not touching that shit with a 20 foot pole.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Until U.S. troops are actually in combat, I cannot see adding them as a combatant in the infobox. By such logic, every country that ever sold weapons or supplies or provided material help of some sort to a combatant in a war, could be listed in the infobox for that war even though the country selling supplies was never engaged. Such listings would make infoboxes about combatants meaningless. Donner60 (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between selling weapons or providing supplies, and deploying a company-level combat-arms unit solely for the purpose of providing direct defensive fires against an attacker who is shooting ballistic missiles in your direction. Let's not conflate two very different things here. As a comparison point, we absolutely consider U.S. Navy ships in theater to be combatants when they're tasked solely for the purpose of providing direct defensive fires against Houthi missiles. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the US' participation rising to the level of being listed as a combatant. The only combat action I'm aware of them initiating is the bombing of Houthi rebels in Yemen - which was done not in direct support of the war in Gaza, but because they keep shooting missiles at international shipping lanes. Setting up troops in defensive positions and shooting down incoming missiles (especially in the context of Israel, which sees missiles being fired into its territory from various directions quite regularly) is not what I would call engaging in combat. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

DoD considers it combat for pay, benefits, and decorations purposes; and land deployments to Israel since 2002, as well as Saudi Arabia since 2019, are eligible for hostile fire/imminent danger pay; and soldiers "personally present and under hostile fire" in those batteries (which can include from indirect fire) would be entitled to combat awards such as Combat Action Badge. I'm not personally suggesting we list it, but I'm saying there's a colorable argument to be made that deploying uniformed, conventional combat-arms troops to engage in what we already define as "combat" may rise to the level of making one a "combatant." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that represents a full and complete picture of what being a "combatant" in a war entails. For one, one definition of "combat" is "a fight between opposing forces". Now I know that in some schools, if a bully hits a kid who then defends himself, both of them get in trouble for "fighting" - but I personally would only call the bully a fighter. In a slightly more accurate metaphor, if a bully is throwing rocks at some kid, and a 2nd kid steps up with a shield to stop the rocks, I certainly don't consider that 2nd kid a "fighter." I feel like initiating any kind of combat action is a prerequisite to being called a "combatant." (exactly like sending a B2 to bomb Houthi bunkers.) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think between a metaphor about school bullies, and what the DoD internally considers to be definitionally combat, the latter is far more compelling for a Wikiproject on military history, and certainly more compelling as to "what being a combatant in a war entails." But that's just my take, as someone who's been a combatant in a war. Other interpretations may vary. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that the US is a combatant in the Red Sea crisis but not in the Israel-Hamas war (which does not for example include Iranian attacks on Israel). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The U.S. Navy certainly has been engaged with the Houthis but has not been a combatant in the Isreael-Hamas War. So the distinction is reasonable. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There's now an open RFC, where people who have previously participated in discussion can now come to restate their opinions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@PhotogenicScientist: isn't that RfC asking a different question? Ally =/= combatant unless I'm missing something Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

They're asking to put the US and UK in the infobox, under the heading "Belligerents", in the parameter "combatant2." It's not a mere question of whether or not those countries are allies of Israel. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The belligerents are Hamas and Israel, the lists say allies, no matter what the parameter is called. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to repeat yourself everywhere. As I said at the RFC, the subheading of "ally" under the heading of "belligerents" is very obviously meant to be read as "belligerent allies." The listing of supporting countries with which combatants have military alliances is, as I've said, deprecated.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You stop repeating yourself and I will. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of the Frontiers

@87.212.79.61: keeps adding 350,000 (August/Septermber) in the infobox but fails to cite it to a reliable source, any suggestions? Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Revert, try to get them to discuss at the talk page, if they still refuse to do so, make a request at WP:RFPP or WP:ANEW as appropriate. Wikiprojects don't have the scope or remit to handle editor disputes of this type. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've run out of reverts (I think) but someone else has reverted it and the editor has put it back. I've left a couple of comments on his talk page. I'll see what happens tomorrow. Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I would not think of reverts as an allotment that you get, and can run out of (except in the rare exception of 1RR cases, in which case it's a binary "you did it or you didn't.) Edit warring can occur well before a user hits the 3RR limitation (see WP:EW) and can be a two way street even when justifiably on the side of "right" as there are only a specific number of enumerated exceptions to the edit warring policy. So if you find yourself dealing with an IP who just won't listen, don't put yourself at risk by running the counter up on your own reverts. Not suggesting you did anything wrong per se, just some helpful advice to avoid any possible blowback. In any event, I've semi-protected the page for a short time, and blocked the IP for edit warring for a slightly longer period (to ensure they don't immediately resume when the protection ends, given their history of having done this across multiple articles as their only contributions to the project thus far). So the immediate problem should be resolved. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I had hoped that the editor would have been ready for dialogue. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps another tactic would be to find a reference, Google Books has:

• Ferro, Mark (2001). The Great War: 1914–1918. London: Routledge. p. 45. ISBN 978-0415267359.

"French losses of 329,000 men in August and September 1914 far exceeded those for any other two-month period of the entire conflict , including the Battle of Verdun in 1916".

Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Now added to the infobox. Does anyone have a ref for British casualties, quoted as 29,597 (seems very precise). Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hastings (Catastrophe, p 548) gives BEF casualties for August-December of 16,200 killed, 47,707 wounded, 16,746 captured and missing. But page 495 gives aa Aug-Nov total of 89,964! Hmm. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a wonderful document produced by the War Office in 1920: Statistics of the military effort of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914-1920 that has all sorts of useful facts and breakdowns for the war. On page 253 it lists casualties of the BEF by month of the war. For August 1914 it lists 88 officers & 1,073 other ranks killed in action, 15 officers and 204 ORs died of wounds, 2 officers died of disease, 147 officers and 3,115 ORs wounded in action and 219 officers and 9,546 ORs missing (including 8,190 taken prisoner); for a total of 14,409 casualties. September's totals are there also to 15,189 total. Combined this is 29,598 casualties, very close to the figure given in the infobox. I suspect that this is where it comes from. Actual casualties for the period of the battle (which is stated as ending on 6 September), will be lower - Dumelow (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that the BEF figure now has a ref and note, so this seems to be... Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

Apropos Statistics.... some of the data is inconsistent and other items have been challenged.....Keith-264 (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

War of the Sixth Coalition - United States co-belligerent?

There's currently a discussion at War of the Sixth Coalition about whether or not the United States should be considered a co-belligerent. I'm not an expert in this particular area and would appreciate any feedback this project can provide. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I will post a reply there as soon as I can get the sources down on paper. The U.S. had grievances against the French as well as the English. The War of 1812 was initiated by the U.S. against the British for totally separate reasons and in no way to directly help the French. Nor did the French help the United States. In fact, the French continued to seize U.S. merchant ships. Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Mini-drive on Category:Military history articles needing attention only to structure

I recently asked for help here on assessing articles in Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials. Contributions by Chipmunkdavis, Hawkeye7, Matarisvan, Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Zawed, Hog Farm and Sturmvogel 66 brought down that category's backlog by 50 or so and helped make progress towards our B-class target (we nudged up 0.1% on the target over the period, but not all of this will be down to the new articles generated from the drive).

I thought I would try to replicate this success in another area. These articles in theory need only attention to structure ie. section headers and lead paragraph. Same procedure as before:

Look at one of the articles below and either:

• If you think it passes all of the B-class criteria and you haven't been involved in writing the article, assess it as B-class on the talk banner template
• If you think the article requires improvement against another of the B-class criteria, assess it as so on the talk banner template
• If you can improve the article to meet all of the B-class criteria, do so and then list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests for formal assessment

When you have done one of these actions strike through the article name and sign against it on the list below

Thanks in advance everybody - Dumelow (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Classical

• Battle of CoronateAdded lead plus bit of tidy. Fails B2. Improvement suggestion on talk page. Monstrelet (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Valens Thessalonicus
• Damasithymus
• Over Burrow Roman Fort
• Later Roman EmpireAssessed as B-class. The lead has been expanded since it was last assessed - Dumelow (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Medieval

• Siege of Bursa
• Battle of Wels
• Battle of Lobregal
• Desiderius Rátót
• Guy II, Count of Saint-Pol
• Giroie, Lord of Échauffour
• Byzantine–Serbian War (1090–1095)
• Floris I van Haamstede The classification needs attention - wiki central classification has this as a stub and it isn't.Monstrelet (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Early Muslim

• Ikrima ibn Amr
• Siege of Tomar
• Neboulos

Early Modern

• Sydnam Poyntz
• Søren Norby
• William Killigrew (1606–1695)
• HMS Warspite (1666)
• Sefer Reis
• Pasquino Corso
• Capture of Valkenburg (1574) b2=no, doesn't feel complete. Open to reassess if that is all that is known about the event - Dumelow (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Siege of Lier (1582) b2=no - Dumelow (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War

• Raid on Charles Town B-Class. Zawed (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Samuel Elbert
• Thomas Overton
• The Radicalism of the American Revolution
• Davidson's Fort

Napoleonic

• John Piper (military officer)b1=n, I rescued a broken ref but a couple of citations still needed - Dumelow (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Sir William Beauchamp-Proctor, 3rd Baronet
• Richard Valentine Morris
• Kitty (1800 ship) b1=n, couple of missing refs
• Henri Victor Roulland
• Henry Frederick Campbell
• George de Grey, 3rd Baron Walsingham
• British Tar (1804 ship) b2=no - Dumelow (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

American Civil War

• Silas H. Stringham B class. Added section headings; added additional text and citations to American Civil War section. Donner60 (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Edwin H. Webster B class. Added to lede, separated text into more sections, added a little information and another reference. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Augustus A. Chapman
• John Lawrence LeConte
• Madame Turchin
• David Wallis Reeves
• Walter Goodale Morrill
• Gettysburg Museum and Visitor Center

World War I

• John Sydney Lethbridge B-Class. Zawed (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Robert Bridgeman, 2nd Viscount Bridgeman b1=n, better source needed tag added - Dumelow (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• German War Graves Commission
• Charles Justin Bailey b1=no - Dumelow (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Short Folder b1=no - Dumelow (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Commander-in-Chief, South Atlantic
• Leander-class cruiser (1882)
• HMS Syren (1900) expanded lead, assessed as B-class - Dumelow (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

World War II

• List of Allied airmen from the Great Escape
• Moscow Conference (1942)
• War Shipping Administration
• Yank, the Army Weekly
• USS Araner (IX-226)
• Harold Redman
• Keep Calm and Carry On
• Hans Stark b1=no, has a fails verification tag already - Dumelow (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Cold War

• South Vietnamese Popular Force
• Project 58/58A
• David Peel Yates
• John Grover (British Army officer) Structure seems okay. Expanded intro. B-class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Peter Harding (RAF officer, born 1940)
• Đông Hà Combat Base
• Adrian Nance
• Vladimír Nedvěd Looks OK for B class to me - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Post-Cold War

• USS North Dakota (SSN-784)
• 2008–2009 Garamba offensive
• Sinjar Resistance Units
• La vita non perde valore
• 2011–12 in the Mexican drug war
• Syriac Military Council
• 2013 Yemeni hospital attack
• 2014 Radda bombings b2=no - Dumelow (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Flers–Courcelette

Would anyone interested in copyvio matters have a look at the reversion of the paragraph German as it's apparently being taken as a copy of something when the thing that is supposed to be the original looks like a copy of our article and that bit is something I wrote based on the OH. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Matter resolved, thanks Nthep. Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing for events at Kamal Adwan Hospital, Gaza

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kamal Adwan Hospital sieges § Over-use of Al Jazeera. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

RNAS Kai Tak

Hi,

@Mikeyp72 has created RNAS Kai Tak, when we already have an well established article at RAF Kai Tak which is only at 11,359 bytes with plenty of room for expansion and we also have Kai Tak Airport at 63,310 bytes. According to the new article their was a Mobile Operational Naval Air Base (MONAB) VIII there only between 1945 and 1947, with the Royal Navy given lodger rights for Kai Tak thereafter.

Is it really necassary to have yet another article about the same airport which closed down in 1998? Gavbadger (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe RNAS Kai Tak should be merged into RAF Kai Tak. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gavbadger For the avoidance of doubt. The article RNAS Kai Tak is intended to explicitly be standalone about the MONAB that was formed up and subsequently situated at Kai Tak Airport alongside RAF Kai Tak, just after the conclusion of the Second World War. It was initially intended to be called HMS Nabstock, however, investigation showed there was a second later commission, HMS Flycatcher, therefore, to cover all it was simply titled RNAS Kai Tak. The approach is to compliment the RAF Kai Tak article and not be a complete duplication about the same airport. All Royal Navy units that used the lodger facilities after the Air Section decommissioned should be added to the RAF Kai Tak article (in progress), with nods to each others existence via sentence with a link.

I would question, while you state RAF Kai Tak is well established as an article, is it only it's length of time of existence that makes you express that? My point is - it has a eleven year old "verification lack of citation notification" and to be fair it is poorly referenced, with each section either a bullet point list or table, with no real encyclopaedic approach. Mikeyp72 (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeyp72: To be fair to Mikey, he's written a rather good article. Is the RAF article good enough to merge with the RNAS? Keith-264 (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

(1) Yes the article Mickeyp72 has just written *is* better than the old and thin RAF Kai Tak article, but that does not change the fact that the FAA was there for about three years before disappearing; (2) If Mickeyp72's intent was to properly cover HMS Nabstock or HMS Flycatcher the correct textbook article title is HMS Flycatcher (roman numeral); possibly HMS Flycatcher (start date - end date) (both with correct italics in the titles); or HMS Flycatcher (Hong Kong shore establishment). (3) RAF Kai Tak, because of its length of service and greater notability, remains the primary topic. WP:SIZERULE would be the applicable guideline, in my view, to determine whether Flycatcher [1946-1948] would be merged into RAF Kai Tak. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My intent was indeed point no. 2. Absolutely agree with points nos. 1 & 3, which are undisputable facts.

Reading through and with hindsight I suspect HMS Flycatcher (Hong Kong shore establishment) [to distinguish from the two other stations commissioned as Flycatcher in the UK] probably would have been the better approach and included HMS Nabcatcher (Nabstock was my mistake), rather than leading with RNAS Kai Tak.

I could use the Move function to effectively change RNAS Kai Tak into HMS Flycatcher (Hong Kong shore establishment). I've not previously attempted to use this functionality, but 'moving' into a completely new page appears straightforward.

I'm not clear how RNAS Kai Tak would be merged into RAF Kai Tak. Not a task (merge into an existing article) I have ever attempted.

Guidance and consensus appreciated here... Mikeyp72 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Mikey the RNAS and RAF Station articles together are easily merge-able. What I do when I merge articles is to open the edit window on the article to be merged, pick up and copy over the text, open the merge-to article, Ctrl-V the text into the merge-to article, adjust the headings (=== === etc) and then tidy up. But most people are looking for details about the RN / FAA in Hong Kong, I tend to think, not starting by looking for the MONABs, a thoroughly obscure concept known only to enthusiasts (anoraks). So that would tend to suggest merge to RAF Kai Tak; redirects and links at MONAB, Flycatcher, Nabcatcher etc. Especially if we are not sure the title "RNAS Kai Tak" was official, which the data appears it was not, we should not use it - stick with Nabcatcher/Flycatcher. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Buckshot06, you make a good point about anoraks (and I tar myself with that brush!). I will follow your approach as described and use 'Ctrl-C - Ctrl-V' to move the text from the RNAS Kai Tak article to the RAF Kai Tak page, ensure headings are correct etc. and then ensure the redirects and links are appropriate, as suggested. I'll put something on the talk page (RNAS Kai Tak page) for completeness and then, when completed, I'll reply here so it can be verified. Mikeyp72 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh many many of us here are anoraks, and I certainly am!! I'll look over your merger (as no doubt Gavbadger will) and give you the chance to untangle the minor issues yourself so you learn for the future. Cheers!! Buckshot06 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Buckshot06, @Gavbadger, I believe I have completed the merge! As discussed, I simply copied and pasted the text and made the necessary adjustments with headers etc. plus amended any relevant redirects including the RNAS Kai Tak page. Any feedback greatly appreciated. @Keith-264 I noticed your edits too in RAF Kai Tak and will take note of your changes, especially the aircraft names and links, removing the manufacturer from the prose, for future approach and again any feedback appreciated! Mikeyp72 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure to help make good work a bit better. I've hummed and aahed about omitting the manufacturer of military aircraft for ages so I'm not committed to it and am happy for anyone to change it if preferred. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you everyone particularly Mikeyp72, the article is really looking considerately better. The RAF side definitely needs a lot of work to bring it up to par.

Regarding naming of aircraft manufacturers and models, is their an actual policy regarding this? I've spent a fair bit of time adding manufacturers to articles especially in WW2 Eighth and Ninth Air Force USAAF units at RAF stations. My position is that the aircraft manufacturer should be included in the first instance along with a link to the article, using the most appropiate manufacturer name for the variant being discussed. Gavbadger (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

What do we do?

Hi Buckshot06, why the change to the Project's main page - [1]. The new version doesn't seem to make sense. Unless it is read as "content-free encyclopedia", as I fear it may be. Also, the edit summary is "tech fix", what technical issue is it fixing? I assume that there is a consensus for this somewhere? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Very good!! I surrender!! Spotted in a heartbeat!! The joke's on me, not some poor sod months later!! Let me roll it back myself. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Very droll. For you Buckshot, the war is over. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Which German Kampfgruppe was at Steamroller Farm?

I'm slowly working on a draft on the Battle of Steamroller Farm here. Steamroller Farm is notable because it was essentially the British doing a "Villers Bocage" to the Germans (i.e., a luck advance aided by strong armour shooting up a whole load of materiel and scoring an out-sized victory). Of course, very typically, we have multiple articles covering Michael Wittmann and Villers Bocage, but none covering Steamroller Farm. There are numerous sources covering the battle, though unfortunately the Internet Archive going offline has reduced this number so I'm relying on what's visible on Google Books (frustratingly this detailed account is not visible!) One issue I've got is the sources seems to totally disagree as to which Kampfgruppe the British were facing in this battle. These include:

• Robert Forczyk in Desert Armour, p.250 - he says Kampfgruppe Schmid. This makes sense as Joseph Schmid was the commander of the Herman Goering division and the sources seem to agree that the German infantry at Steamroller Farm were fallshirmjaeger of the 5th regiment from that division. Also he provides a fairly detailed account of the battle and seems to have good credentials.
• David Rolf in The Bloody Road to Tunis credits Gruppe Koch with this attack, and shows Schmid as attacking further north. Indeed, 5th regiment seems to have been part of Kampfgruppe Koch. This is pretty convincing, but...
• Clear The Way by Richard Doherty credits it to Schirmer's men. This makes sense as Schirmer was a battalion commander in the 5th regiment - the full quote is not visible, but it seems possible that Schirmer's battalion could have been acting as part of a larger kampfgruppe under Schmid or Koch, through I do see other (non-RS) sources talking about "Gruppe Schirmer".
  

Based on this source, "Kampfgruppe Schmid" was simply a name for the elements of the Herman Goering division present in Tunisia at the time of the battle, with Gruppe Koch being a sub-unit of that (and possibly Schirmer's men were part of Gruppe Koch?) which would resolve the above discrepancies (though it wouldn't answer the question of which German officer was actually in direct command at Steamroller Farm), but it would be nice to have sources saying so. FOARP (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Convoy PQ 18 order of battle

Convoy PQ 18 order of battle would Luftflotte 5/Luftwaffe torpedo-bomber unit experts have a look at the table for the Luftwaffe please as I lack the sources to do it justice. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Circassian War

I am looking at an edit request made on Talk:Russo-Circassian War, asking for the Balkar and Karachay volunteers to be moved from the pro-Russia side of the conflict (in the infobox) to the pro-Circassian side of the conflict. It appears (from the context of the article itself) that both groups may have started on the Russian side, but switched sides(?) somewhere mid-conflict. I do not know anything about this and am requesting someone that does please look into it. If they did switch sides mid-conflict, I assume they should be listed under both sides in the infobox with a note? Thank you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Confederate officer biography lead sentences

Could someone from this task force take a look at edits like this changing the lead sentence of articles like Joseph E. Johnston? I came across the edit via WP:THQ#Correct guidelines for "Confederate" or simply "American" generals for American Civil War (1861-1865) articles and the change has been boldly made in several articles in addition to the Johnston one. This seems like something that should be sufficiently discussed somewhere (perhaps here) per WP:CAUTIOUS since it likely affects lots of articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That could be a problem. Will look further to see how far along we are. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I can say, as someone who's been here as long as anybody, discussion in these cases is that the oft-applied modifier "American" is entirely accurate and non-controversial in the lede sentence. When we reduce the lengthy service careers of longtime US Army officers like Johnston and Jackson to the few years of their rebellion, it supplies an incomplete summary of the subject, and focuses unduly on partisan rancor. Both were US and well as CS officers. Both American. BusterD (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I was going to post a longer reply here, but I agree with BusterD who summarizes it better than I was going to. Hog Farm _Talk 21:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree mostly w/ BusterD here but I would get there in a different way. The Confederacy never achieved legitimacy, as an unrecognized breakaway state whose rebellion failed. At all times the nationality of the CSA officers was "American", even when they were committing treason against the United States. As such, I would agree that "American" is entirely accurate and non-controversial in the lede, but I would also split the difference when relevant and try to include words to the effect of "who fought for the Confederate States Army" in the introductory sentence of the lede (or whichever sentence it is that also uses the descriptor "American" if not the first). In cases where the person's confederate service is not highly relevant I would not include it in the lede at all and simply go with "American." For example: Mark Twain, who briefly served in the Confederate militia for about two weeks but whose notability is wholly unrelated to their military service, is described as: "Samuel Langhorne Clemens ...<name/birth stuff>..., was an American writer, humorist, and essayist" and his confederate service is not mentioned in the lede at all. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I won't link to discussions but I remember hammering this out case by case at first until we came up with language that nobody reverted. User:Swatjester's rationale dovetails with mine. In cases like Jackson and Johnston, IMHO their notability arises from their leadership during the rebellion, so a lede sentence should contain such linkage. BusterD (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

And of course Wikipedia includes coverage of Clemens's two weeks of service, because he wrote about it, thank goodness. The story reminds me a bit of the manner in which Wikipedia's Military History project operated for the first year or so. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Luftflotte 5

I'm looking for better sources on this air fleet, any suggestions? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh well, how about Axis blockade runners? Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Help reference military history articles in the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles #NOV24 Backlog Drive

Hi WikiProject Military history, I’d like to invite anyone interested to join the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles #NOV24 Backlog Drive. There's already been an impressively large reduction in the number of unreferenced military history articles over the last months, but in case you want to apply any more of that energy to the drive, you can quickly access a list of remaining ones here. The drive runs through November, and any help adding reliable sources is welcome. Thanks! Turtlecrown (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)