This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peacemaker67 (talk | contribs) at 06:55, 6 May 2012 (→Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia: article move infobox and flag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:55, 6 May 2012 by Peacemaker67 (talk | contribs) (→Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia: article move infobox and flag)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
GAN listings
G'day. I wondered what the protocols are for GAN listings. It appears that editors can add articles at any place in the list. Some articles seem to remain at about the same place in the list, and never move up the list despite reviews of others above them on the list. What is the rule? Are they ordered chronologically based on date of listing or some other criteria? Peacemaker67 (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think they're ordered chronologically. Since people can review articles at any place on the list, newer articles can get reviewed before older ones, and vice versa; that probably causes the unpredictable movement you're seeing. Kirill 14:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- The listing at WP:GAN are made in chronological order by a bot - editors don't need to manually add entries. As Kirill notes, the order they're reviewed in is dependent on the interests of the prospective reviewers. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- The listing at WP:GAN are made in chronological order by a bot - editors don't need to manually add entries. As Kirill notes, the order they're reviewed in is dependent on the interests of the prospective reviewers. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
"most severely neglected" list?
Is there a list somewhere of the "most severely neglected" Military history articles on Misplaced Pages, based on the importance of the event itself? If so, I nominate Huaihai Campaign to the top of the list, with honorable mention to Battle of Lepanto. later Ling.Nut3 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there's Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages, which gives the top 500 MILHIST articles by page view - many of them are in dismal shape. I don't think I've ever seen a "most severely neglected" list that encompasses the whole project. Dana boomer (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose you could go for a WP:BOUNTY on those pages if you want to see them improved. —Ed! 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Popular is, of course, things popular on wikipedia which also happen to have a MILHIST tag. There is no reason why they should have any military importance. We of course don't do importance scale, so couldn't produce an importance-based list. While this saves us a lot of spurious ranking, it does mean we cannot target article improvement this way. Monstrelet (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose you could go for a WP:BOUNTY on those pages if you want to see them improved. —Ed! 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
"We of course don't do importance scale." Actually, several task forces have an importance scale, like the American Civil War, the American Revolutionary War, and the military biography task forces all divide their articles accoring to importance. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- We don't. What you see is a side effect of the dual-wikiproject nature of those task forces. Milhist (and the {{MILHIST}} talk page project tag) isn't assessing the articles for importance, but the other partner in the wikiproject (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States for the first two examples, Biography for the third) do in their project tags. The software behind the assessment summary tables picks up that the article has a "Class" assessment and an "Importance" assessment and displays that in the results, not particularly fussing over which project's tag it these came from. -- saberwyn 15:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the solution would seem to correct the software so the "side effect" doesn't show up. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Members Library
Hello everyone, I took a look on the Project Main Page and was wondering if there is any register where the members of the project can write down links to their user pages where they list the books of their private military history library. Otherwise there could also be a register with the books and which members own them. This could be a great advantage for article work as not every user has access to all the books he needs for an article but maybe another user has and can be asked to searched a certain fact in the book. If this already exists and I missed it, sorry guys! --Bomzibar (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Bomzibar, there's a list of editors' personal libraries (including mine) at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Logistics#Personal libraries. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, then I missed it, thank you Nick. --Bomzibar (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- On a related note, I've added a link to a LibraryThing list rather than manually copying it into WP (and then worrying about keeping it up-to-date) - I don't think this is likely to be objectionable, but as it's the only external link there I thought it worth checking opinions... Shimgray | talk | 21:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's fine. :-) Ed 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
| Click on for progress bar | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- The "needs grammar help" checks are really helpful, I'm going to see if I can get GOCE help with those. Great work! - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'll try and help out with these assessments when I can (not the copy editing though). If we all set ourselves a goal of doing 5 a day we could probably crack it in about a year. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- There are as of May 3rd 242 days left in the year. With a 23,500 backlog, around 97 article per day would need to be finished for the backlog to be completed by the end of the year. Not counting any influx of added articles.--MOLEY (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thats seems like a lot... Mathamatactics never was my strong suit. Anotherclown (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- There are as of May 3rd 242 days left in the year. With a 23,500 backlog, around 97 article per day would need to be finished for the backlog to be completed by the end of the year. Not counting any influx of added articles.--MOLEY (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'll try and help out with these assessments when I can (not the copy editing though). If we all set ourselves a goal of doing 5 a day we could probably crack it in about a year. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
military biographies and videogame links
Should the military biographies of Three Kingdoms era generals contain links to List of Dynasty Warriors characters ? Bear in mind these are real historical personages, who happen to be used in the videogames as playable fighters. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would suggest not including them unless there's something substantive to be said about the individual's depiction in popular culture (per WP:MILPOP). Otherwise, we're likely to develop a long list of otherwise non-notable video game appearances; while Dynasty Warriors is perhaps the best-known game set in the Three Kingdoms period, there are dozens of others that also use these individuals as characters.
- Do we have, incidentally, any examples of articles where a military leader's depiction in a video game is given substantial treatment? Kirill 04:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
A new year
I have recently wrote and began working with Second Banda Oriental campaign, an article about a specific military campaign of the Argentine War of Independence. The first military conflict of this campaign was the Battle of Cerrito, which took place on December 31, 1812 (yes, the last day of the year). In the campaign article, should I mention as dates "1812-1814" or 1813-1814"? Cambalachero (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would think you'd be ok with using 1812, since there would have been preparatory action (maneuvers, troop shifts, political stuff, etc.) prior to the 31 Dec battle. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Let me be fussy. Did the shooting proper begin after midnight 30/31 Dec & end before midnight 31 Dec/1 Jan? If so, you're fine with 1812 IMO. If the main action was over by midnight 31 Dec/1 Jan, I'd still say you're fine, even if there was some mopping up after that. My $0.02. TREKphiler 09:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Kniveton, G. Manx Aviation in War and Peace. Douglas, Isle of Man, The Manx Experience, 1985.
Hello
Does anyone own this book "Kniveton, G. Manx Aviation in War and Peace. Douglas, Isle of Man, The Manx Experience, 1985."
If yes do you know what the ISBN is?
Gavbadger (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- The only entry in COPAC has no ISBN; ditto WorldCat. I strongly suspect it was published without one; it's rare for a catalogue entry to omit them if present. Shimgray | talk | 22:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Manx National Heritage Library asserts it has no ISBN. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, i did search using a online search engine but every entry i found had the ISBN section empty, I thought it was a bit weird, thank you for help. Gavbadger (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Aviation combat losses
Military aviation accidents are covered by a number of lists. Would there be any mileage in lists for aircraft lost in warfare. These could be by year or by war as appropriate. I realise that this would be a huge task, but on the other hand there should be plenty of sources to document individual combat losses. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say to be fair we'd have to do casualty lists for ground forces too, broken up by nation and divided by conflicts. Would be a huge task considering we don't have any lists to that end that I know of. —Ed! 20:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's also the question of what constitutes a combat loss. The U.S. Army in Vietnam has been accused of not considering a helicopter "lost" unless it was damaged beyond all salvage or recovery, and I'm sure that same sentiment could extend to other forces and nations. Technically a helicopter could be considered "shot down" if it was damaged and forced to land, but that didn't prevent it from being recovered, repaired, and put back into service. There are also a fair number of competing claims lists from various conflicts that haven't been fully reconciled. Just seems it might be more work, and end up requiring original research, if we wanted to do it properly.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- One approach might be to define a combat loss as an incident in which the aircraft in question was lost to the operator as a result of military action. Thus an aircraft damaged and force to land in an enemy/neutral country would be such a combat loss, even if the recipient returned it to service. Similarly, an aircraft declared as damaged beyond repair but subsequently returned to service anyway could be considered a combat loss. Severe damaged that was repaired wouldn't constitute a loss. Mjroots (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- We do have at least two examples of such articles: List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War and List of aviation accidents and incidents in the War in Afghanistan. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, so there is precedent then. I'd suggest that lists for WWI, the Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korean War and Vietnam War (subdivided by year?) would be viable. Other wars are available of course, such as the Six Day War. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- We do have at least two examples of such articles: List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War and List of aviation accidents and incidents in the War in Afghanistan. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- One approach might be to define a combat loss as an incident in which the aircraft in question was lost to the operator as a result of military action. Thus an aircraft damaged and force to land in an enemy/neutral country would be such a combat loss, even if the recipient returned it to service. Similarly, an aircraft declared as damaged beyond repair but subsequently returned to service anyway could be considered a combat loss. Severe damaged that was repaired wouldn't constitute a loss. Mjroots (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's also the question of what constitutes a combat loss. The U.S. Army in Vietnam has been accused of not considering a helicopter "lost" unless it was damaged beyond all salvage or recovery, and I'm sure that same sentiment could extend to other forces and nations. Technically a helicopter could be considered "shot down" if it was damaged and forced to land, but that didn't prevent it from being recovered, repaired, and put back into service. There are also a fair number of competing claims lists from various conflicts that haven't been fully reconciled. Just seems it might be more work, and end up requiring original research, if we wanted to do it properly.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikimania meetup
The last day of Wikimania in Washington D.C., Sunday July 15, is an "unconference", meaning most of the time isn't scheduled beforehand, you can create whatever sessions you want ... would anyone like to do a Milhist meetup for one of the sessions? - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I won't know until mid-summer if I can go (no scholarship!), but I'd love to if I go and if there is interest. Ed 11:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'll be in DC over the summer doing archival research, so I could come then. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Doing a military history session/meetup on the unconference day sounds like a great idea; alternately, if people would prefer, we could get together for dinner sometime during the conference itself. In either case, I would encourage everyone to come to Wikimania if they're able—we're going to have a great program this year—and I look forward to welcoming all of you to DC! Kirill 04:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Book:Three Kingdoms: Military Conflicts
Can someone check this? Book:Three Kingdoms: Military Conflicts
It has redlinks, I thought books were not supposed to contain redlinks? And are you supposed to credit yourself? since Misplaced Pages is a site anyone can edit, so if there are any changes it will no longer be a compilation by the original author... 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia
G'day, I'm looking for some advice/assistance regarding this article Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander). I know that most experienced MILHIST editors will probably shake their heads and wouldn't touch a WW2 Balkans article with a barge pole, but please bear with me for a moment. The status of this territory is the subject of some controversy between a small number of editors, and I would like to enlist the help of a disinterested experienced MILHIST editor to help out on a few key issues. The 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' or 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' (slight variations between sources on the translation of the official German name) was established on 22 April 1941 after the invasion of Yugoslavia, and remained occupied by the Germans until October 1944. Essentially, the occupied territory consisted of a part of Yugoslavia as it existed before the war (there was no state or subdivision called Serbia between 1922 and 1941, and the occupied territory included parts of several banovina of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia). From late May 1941 until they withdrew, the Germans were assisted by puppet governments they appointed to assist them to administer the territory, but the territory never achieved any level of independence or recognition, even within the Axis.
There are some pretty strongly held views on this article, and without wishing to oversimplify, there are those that see it as part of the historiographical continuum of current-day Serbia, and others that wish to see it made consistent with articles relating to similar territories. The two approaches seem mutually exclusive at present. Partly as a result, we have a real hodgepodge of an article, with a freeform infobox, non-standard structure and lack of clarity on what the article is about, plus a 1R restriction at the moment. What I'm after is not so much a 3O (there are several editors involved), but a go-to disinterested experienced MILHIST editor with some knowledge of German occupied territories who is willing to look at a few key issues in some detail and make some suggestions about a way forward. I know. I don't want much! I understand it is a big ask and it is a specialised area... Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- First question Peacemaker67, is this a territory or a military formation? Second, completely not a Balkan specialist as I am, why can't both Serbian historiography and the similar-territories view be satisfied? Is there some specific reason why some compromise can't be reached as to a structure? Why don't you elaborate a little more? Good luck with this.. looking forward to hearing more. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is a territory not a military formation. The function of the Military Commander in Serbia was to be, in effect, the supreme authority in an occupied area of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia that roughly corresponds with modern Serbia. An occupied territory controlled by the 'Military Commander in Serbia', hence the official name. It is really part of the historiography of Yugoslavia (there was a Yugoslavia both before and after this period unlike Serbia which hadn't existed between 1929 and 1941). The issues revolve around the status of the territory. We are getting hung up on some key issues like the article title, type of infobox and what flags should be used to represent the territory. There were two puppet governments appointed by the Germans to help them administer the territory, but only one had more than a few months longevity, and it was completely subservient to the German military administration. I may not be giving some alternate views sufficient prominence here, but that is the gist of it as I see it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Buckshot06, the problem is that Peacemaker67 and DIREKTOR are trying to present this territory as some "colony of Germany". While it was occupied by German army ("Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" was only a name of German military district that covered the area), the area was also commonly known as Serbia and was seen as de jure separate country in Axis Europe (it is presented as separate political entity in all history maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links ). Besides German military administrators, territory had civil Serbian government, its own armed units known as Serbian State Guard, its own flag, coat of arms, currency etc. Peacemaker67 and DIREKTOR are simply trying to exclude from the article these sources that referring to elements of statehood of this area and they aiming to present this area only as "occupied area" (for example they want to include in the infobox of this territory flag of Nazi Germany, which was not flag of the territory, while they do not want that actual flag of the territory is used in the infobox). PANONIAN 22:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, so there you have, in a nutshell, the problem here. There were numerous German occupied territories where the Nazis appointed puppet governments, but unlike the articles for those other territories, which have Nazi flags in their infoboxes. User:PANONIAN clearly wants this one to look like a country, hence the custom infobox etc. Everything done in the territory was done with the permission of the Military Commander. The Germans selected the leaders of both puppet governments, authorised the use of the flag etc by the puppet government, authorised the raising of the Serbian State Guard which served under the command of the Higher SS and Police Leader, and completely ignored numerous threats by the leader of the puppet government to resign because he wasn't being given any freedom of action. There was no proclamation of the establishment of a state (as happened in the puppet state the Independent State of Croatia, engineered by the same German that appointed Nedic) or any semblance of independence whatsoever. The maps thing is a furphy which has been thoroughly deconstructed on the talk page, as has the idea that there was any WP:COMMONNAME for the territory. Unfortunately, User:PANONIAN continues to use these arguments but has not engaged with the sources. It is pretty frustrating. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- But it is fully unclear why flag of Germany was added to other articles. It was added there by few Wiki users without any valid reason and that flag should be removed from these other articles as well, since there is no single evidence that flag of Germany was used as flag of any of these territories - all of them were separate political entities or countries, since country is defined as "a distinct entity in political geography". Peacemaker67 wants to present that these were some provinces of Germany, which is not correct. And it is not true that my claims are not supported by sources. I collected numerous sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 It is Peacemaker67 who does not have a single source that would support these things: 1. that Serbia was part or subdivision of Germany, 2. that flag of Germany was used as official flag of the area, 3. that area did not had elements of statehood (civil Serbian government, armed units, flag, coat of arms, currency, etc). PANONIAN 06:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, all. This has degenerated as I feared it would. I've never said this territory was a province of Germany or part of the Greater Reich, or implied it. I have never advanced an argument that this 'Serbia' was a part of or a subdivision of Germany. I have produced masses of inline sources (in the article) for the complete lack of independent action and power of the 'Serbian' puppet regimes whose leaders were selected by the Germans, and that any raising of armed units, use of flags etc was all with the express permission of the Germans, to help them exploit the resources of the territory and get the locals to fight those that were interfering with that exploitation. They were not elements of statehood, they were limited concessions the Germans allowed them to get them onside so they could get the locals to collaborate with them. The German Military Commander remained the supreme authority in the occupied territory. Sorry for the distraction everyone, I'll take this back to the backwaters of Balkan history. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- In reviewing the Manual of Style on flag icons in infoboxes, this article is a perfect case in point of why they are sometimes unnecessary and distracting. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hang on Peacemaker67, you deserve some help. Everything has to be a matter of WP:Reliable Sources, yes and I sometimes wonder whether we need infoboxes - they distort the messiness of real human history sometimes. The problem as I understand is title (but that's minor), flag, and infobox. Well, there are two variations for the title, right, but they're not significant, yes?
For the rest, I would advise not showing a flag in the infobox; applicable flags can be shown in the article.That leaves the infobox. Would you mind explaining please further what the different arguments for the infobox are? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC) - Panonian, looking at your sources page, none of your materials contradict anything Peacemaker67 is trying to prove. Would you like to explain exactly why if you dispute the current article title, what your prefered form of the infobox is, and why? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Buckshot06, article title is acceptable for me, as well as usage of name "Territory of the German Military Commander", which is supported by the source. However, much larger number of sources is using terms "Serbia" or "Nedić's Serbia" and my point is that these two names should be also used on the top of the infobox below the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". Second thing, title of new infobox is "Infobox former subdivision" and Serbia was not subdivision of any other entity, so I think that this infobox is misleading and that "Infobox former country" should be used instead. Third, It is the fact that symbols of Nazi Germany were not symbols of this territory and therefore these symbols should not be used in the infobox since they wrongly imply that Serbia was part of Nazi Germany. PANONIAN 08:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06, I'm afraid I must disagree with PANONIAN on 'Serbia/Nedic's Serbia' and the infobox. This territory was a subdivision of Yugoslavia created by the Germans when they invaded and occupied the country (of Yugoslavia). We know its official name, and neither 'Serbia/Nedic's Serbia' is the WP:COMMONNAME (see talkpage discussion of the application of WP:TITLE). Using the official name and not various others in the infobox is consistent with WP:IBX and just keeping it reasonably tidy. We have recently moved to the infobox former subdivision for the above reason, not because anyone has ever suggested that it was a subdivision of Germany, although we don't seem to be able to get past that idea. I'm ambivalent about even putting a flag in the infobox, but I'm not the only editor involved here. My view is that the Militarbefehlshaber (Military Commander) flag is probably the most accurate, rather than the straight Nazi one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do not agree that "Serbia was a subdivision of Yugoslavia" - Germans officially destroyed Yugoslavia and created 3 new independent entities in its territory: Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro. Germans did not regarded these entities as "subdivisions of Yugoslavia", but as new separate countries and Yugoslav government in exile also did not recognized existence of these entities. Furthermore, articles about two other entities are using "Infobox former country", see: Independent State of Croatia and Kingdom of Montenegro (1941–1944). Why double criteria are used here: one for Serbia and another one for other two entities? Regarding the official name, puppet Serbian government used name "Serbia" in its official documents, so there is no clear evidence that name "Serbia" was not official as well. As I pointed out on other talk page, two names ("Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" and "Serbia") are not excluding each other since "Serbia" was a name of the country and "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" was a name of German military district located in that country (therefore name of the district says that it is located "in Serbia"). PANONIAN 09:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is WP:OR. You have no evidence that the Germans 'created' 'Serbia'. At all. @Buckshot06, can I ask for a a couple of minutes of your time to read this ]. Kroener et al is an incredibly detailed, long and authoritative text on Germany in WW2. This part of this volume (specifically pages 121 onwards for about eight pages) comprehensively debunks the OR on this issue that is being used here and elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- But this author mention "Serbia" on various pages: . Since Serbia did not existed from 1918 to 1941, it is obvious that Germans created it. Also check map on page 86 in this book - "Serbia" written with big letters and "Territory of the Commander Serbia" with smaller letters below the name "Serbia". PANONIAN 11:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is WP:OR. You have no evidence that the Germans 'created' 'Serbia'. At all. @Buckshot06, can I ask for a a couple of minutes of your time to read this ]. Kroener et al is an incredibly detailed, long and authoritative text on Germany in WW2. This part of this volume (specifically pages 121 onwards for about eight pages) comprehensively debunks the OR on this issue that is being used here and elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do not agree that "Serbia was a subdivision of Yugoslavia" - Germans officially destroyed Yugoslavia and created 3 new independent entities in its territory: Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro. Germans did not regarded these entities as "subdivisions of Yugoslavia", but as new separate countries and Yugoslav government in exile also did not recognized existence of these entities. Furthermore, articles about two other entities are using "Infobox former country", see: Independent State of Croatia and Kingdom of Montenegro (1941–1944). Why double criteria are used here: one for Serbia and another one for other two entities? Regarding the official name, puppet Serbian government used name "Serbia" in its official documents, so there is no clear evidence that name "Serbia" was not official as well. As I pointed out on other talk page, two names ("Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" and "Serbia") are not excluding each other since "Serbia" was a name of the country and "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" was a name of German military district located in that country (therefore name of the district says that it is located "in Serbia"). PANONIAN 09:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06, I'm afraid I must disagree with PANONIAN on 'Serbia/Nedic's Serbia' and the infobox. This territory was a subdivision of Yugoslavia created by the Germans when they invaded and occupied the country (of Yugoslavia). We know its official name, and neither 'Serbia/Nedic's Serbia' is the WP:COMMONNAME (see talkpage discussion of the application of WP:TITLE). Using the official name and not various others in the infobox is consistent with WP:IBX and just keeping it reasonably tidy. We have recently moved to the infobox former subdivision for the above reason, not because anyone has ever suggested that it was a subdivision of Germany, although we don't seem to be able to get past that idea. I'm ambivalent about even putting a flag in the infobox, but I'm not the only editor involved here. My view is that the Militarbefehlshaber (Military Commander) flag is probably the most accurate, rather than the straight Nazi one. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Buckshot06, article title is acceptable for me, as well as usage of name "Territory of the German Military Commander", which is supported by the source. However, much larger number of sources is using terms "Serbia" or "Nedić's Serbia" and my point is that these two names should be also used on the top of the infobox below the "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". Second thing, title of new infobox is "Infobox former subdivision" and Serbia was not subdivision of any other entity, so I think that this infobox is misleading and that "Infobox former country" should be used instead. Third, It is the fact that symbols of Nazi Germany were not symbols of this territory and therefore these symbols should not be used in the infobox since they wrongly imply that Serbia was part of Nazi Germany. PANONIAN 08:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hang on Peacemaker67, you deserve some help. Everything has to be a matter of WP:Reliable Sources, yes and I sometimes wonder whether we need infoboxes - they distort the messiness of real human history sometimes. The problem as I understand is title (but that's minor), flag, and infobox. Well, there are two variations for the title, right, but they're not significant, yes?
- In reviewing the Manual of Style on flag icons in infoboxes, this article is a perfect case in point of why they are sometimes unnecessary and distracting. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, all. This has degenerated as I feared it would. I've never said this territory was a province of Germany or part of the Greater Reich, or implied it. I have never advanced an argument that this 'Serbia' was a part of or a subdivision of Germany. I have produced masses of inline sources (in the article) for the complete lack of independent action and power of the 'Serbian' puppet regimes whose leaders were selected by the Germans, and that any raising of armed units, use of flags etc was all with the express permission of the Germans, to help them exploit the resources of the territory and get the locals to fight those that were interfering with that exploitation. They were not elements of statehood, they were limited concessions the Germans allowed them to get them onside so they could get the locals to collaborate with them. The German Military Commander remained the supreme authority in the occupied territory. Sorry for the distraction everyone, I'll take this back to the backwaters of Balkan history. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- But it is fully unclear why flag of Germany was added to other articles. It was added there by few Wiki users without any valid reason and that flag should be removed from these other articles as well, since there is no single evidence that flag of Germany was used as flag of any of these territories - all of them were separate political entities or countries, since country is defined as "a distinct entity in political geography". Peacemaker67 wants to present that these were some provinces of Germany, which is not correct. And it is not true that my claims are not supported by sources. I collected numerous sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02 It is Peacemaker67 who does not have a single source that would support these things: 1. that Serbia was part or subdivision of Germany, 2. that flag of Germany was used as official flag of the area, 3. that area did not had elements of statehood (civil Serbian government, armed units, flag, coat of arms, currency, etc). PANONIAN 06:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, so there you have, in a nutshell, the problem here. There were numerous German occupied territories where the Nazis appointed puppet governments, but unlike the articles for those other territories, which have Nazi flags in their infoboxes. User:PANONIAN clearly wants this one to look like a country, hence the custom infobox etc. Everything done in the territory was done with the permission of the Military Commander. The Germans selected the leaders of both puppet governments, authorised the use of the flag etc by the puppet government, authorised the raising of the Serbian State Guard which served under the command of the Higher SS and Police Leader, and completely ignored numerous threats by the leader of the puppet government to resign because he wasn't being given any freedom of action. There was no proclamation of the establishment of a state (as happened in the puppet state the Independent State of Croatia, engineered by the same German that appointed Nedic) or any semblance of independence whatsoever. The maps thing is a furphy which has been thoroughly deconstructed on the talk page, as has the idea that there was any WP:COMMONNAME for the territory. Unfortunately, User:PANONIAN continues to use these arguments but has not engaged with the sources. It is pretty frustrating. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Buckshot06, the problem is that Peacemaker67 and DIREKTOR are trying to present this territory as some "colony of Germany". While it was occupied by German army ("Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" was only a name of German military district that covered the area), the area was also commonly known as Serbia and was seen as de jure separate country in Axis Europe (it is presented as separate political entity in all history maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN/Sources02#Maps_from_external_links ). Besides German military administrators, territory had civil Serbian government, its own armed units known as Serbian State Guard, its own flag, coat of arms, currency etc. Peacemaker67 and DIREKTOR are simply trying to exclude from the article these sources that referring to elements of statehood of this area and they aiming to present this area only as "occupied area" (for example they want to include in the infobox of this territory flag of Nazi Germany, which was not flag of the territory, while they do not want that actual flag of the territory is used in the infobox). PANONIAN 22:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is a territory not a military formation. The function of the Military Commander in Serbia was to be, in effect, the supreme authority in an occupied area of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia that roughly corresponds with modern Serbia. An occupied territory controlled by the 'Military Commander in Serbia', hence the official name. It is really part of the historiography of Yugoslavia (there was a Yugoslavia both before and after this period unlike Serbia which hadn't existed between 1929 and 1941). The issues revolve around the status of the territory. We are getting hung up on some key issues like the article title, type of infobox and what flags should be used to represent the territory. There were two puppet governments appointed by the Germans to help them administer the territory, but only one had more than a few months longevity, and it was completely subservient to the German military administration. I may not be giving some alternate views sufficient prominence here, but that is the gist of it as I see it. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
'it is obvious the Germans created it.' is WP:OR. WP doesn't take 'judicial notice' of things you consider 'obvious'. You need a source for the 'creation' of Serbia, you can't just assume it, especially when it is so controversial and flies in the face of WP:RS on this issue like Kroener, Lemkin etc. There is no decree creating 'Serbia', no German order creating 'Serbia'. If there is, you need to produce it. I really think this discussion has deteriorated beyond what is reasonable on a project talkpage, and we are going to have to find some other way through this. I am disappointed by this, but it's just becoming embarrassing for everyone involved. I am not participating in any further discussion here except with disinterested editors such as Buckshot06 (assuming he still wants to help). Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Now, I collected sources that saying that state/country of Serbia was indeed established by the Germans in 1941:
- "Germany established the puppet state of Serbia"
- "A puppet state of Serbia was created"
- "a small puppet state of Serbia was established"
- "recreated country of Serbia"
- "The Axis also created two quisling states: Croatia and Serbia"
- "Croatia (Pavelic) and Serbia both established fascist states allied to Germany"
PANONIAN 19:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thankyou both for your comments. Peacemaker67, do not worry about what is appropriate or inappropriate on a project talkpage; you obviously weren't here when Mrg was around. This is exactly what we're here for, and it is much better that this issue is sorted out with many monitoring it than on some obscure talkpage.
- The article title issue does not appear to be a problem. 'Nedic's Serbia / Serbia' is not appropriate; the word 'Serbia' is already included in the title of the article, and 'Nedic's Serbia' is not encyclopedic language for the infobox - in formal English terms, it's too slangy. The reference to 'Serbia' in 'Territory of the Military Commander, Serbia' is enough to allude to the region. Panonian, I would advise you draft some sentences on the talk page so that 'Nedic's Serbia' can be incorporated into the first two or three lines of the article.
- On the infobox, this territory of Serbia was not a subdivision of anything, while as for infobox former country, the Independent State of Croatia and Kingdom of Montengro were both recognised at least by the Germans themselves, while this territory seems to have existed just about in legal limbo (or German right of brute force). It was not a country/state, though in making this judgment, there's no prejudice to the existence of the Serbian people etc. In my view, thus neither of the infoboxes in question is appropriate - time to call out the infobox experts, or make one up ourselves (which may have been done already). Peacemaker67, Kroener specifically uses the term 'Serbia' to designate this area under military administration, so unless you can offer further contravening evidence, I tend to agree with Panonian that de facto, Serbia was 'created' in 1941 *by the creation of this administration*.
- Flag: having further investigated, I believe the flag of the Militarbefehlshaber is best, if we have it. In the interim, I have removed the flag and crest from the infobox while this is under discussion.
- Further thoughts welcome, especially from those who have not already participated. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is good to have your perspective, and I certainly appreciate having these discussions in front of at least some of the wider MILHIST community rather than on the article talkpage with only two or three other editors. The current article title issue is that whilst I am relatively happy with the current title, we have editors interested in moves to both 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' and 'Serbia (1941-1944)'. I certainly don't think the second one is appropriate, and I'm pretty ambivalent about the first one. We have already got a 'Names' section which doesn't contain any explanation but does have a number of different names used by a variety of WP:RS to describe this territory. I for one am comfortable with including 'Nedic's Serbia' in the first two or three lines of the lead. I agree with the legal limbo observation, and I believe the sources make it clear that is exactly why it was in limbo. Thanks for your time and effort. Given the outstanding issue of the article title, would you mind having a look at Talk:Serbia_(Territory_of_the_German_Military_Commander)#Official_name_for_the_Territory_referred_to_as_.27Serbia_under_German_occupation.27 and Talk:Serbia_(Territory_of_the_German_Military_Commander)#WP:COMMONNAME as regards the title? Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think the proper article title is clear - as close an English translation as one can get of the official German military title, Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien, which appears to be Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, though we may have to call out the German speakers for expert views. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Buckshot, um, was this an accident? :) -- Director (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry Director, that was an accident. I had a couple of edit conflict warnings but they only showed me that I'd reloaded my own text. Please go ahead.. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well basically what I'm saying is I feel strange advocating the use of the Nazi flag, but since its common practice to use a German flag on a German occupation zone (go figure..), I think it ought to go back up until there's a real reason not to use it. PANONIAN is perfectly capable of "debating" in perpetuitas to keep it out, no question, so there's really no point in awaiting some sort of agreement from him. To quote his own words, he's apparently a "patriot" defending "Serbian statehood". -- Director (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Shall I personally go around and substitute the Militarbefehlshaber on all of them? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't follow? Substitute the Militarbefehlshaber? If you're suggesting deleting the flags off all of them, and having infobox entries empty for the sake of PANONIAN, I couldn't disagree more. I think a German flag on a German occupation zone makes sense, these people answered directly to ministries in Berlin, and with all the confusion on that article, uniformity and clarity are definitely a good thing. -- Director (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I mean placing the Military Commander's flag, a military flag, on all the occupation zones: Belgium/N France, France, Norway, Netherlands, Ukraine, etc. See Peacemaker67's comments above. Seems more correct that way, as they were not formally made part of the Greater German Reich. And no this is not for the sake of Panonian - just seems more accurate. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd vastly prefer the Military Commander's flag on this article. I can't speak for the other articles, because as Kroener et al point out, the German's had a pretty confusing set of structures in their sphere of power, and I'm not familiar with them all. BTW, I've asked a de-3 editor, User:Xuxalliope (who helped us with the infobox) for a translation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree, and I'm fully prepared to disagree for at least several weeks' worth of discussion :). Seriously, though, while I would prefer it to nothing, I never saw anything like that. That's a personal flag, a flag of a military officer, like a general's flag. I don't see it representing a territory. Besides, we know from Tomasevich that the Military Commander had little to no real power over the territory. -- Director (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd vastly prefer the Military Commander's flag on this article. I can't speak for the other articles, because as Kroener et al point out, the German's had a pretty confusing set of structures in their sphere of power, and I'm not familiar with them all. BTW, I've asked a de-3 editor, User:Xuxalliope (who helped us with the infobox) for a translation. Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I mean placing the Military Commander's flag, a military flag, on all the occupation zones: Belgium/N France, France, Norway, Netherlands, Ukraine, etc. See Peacemaker67's comments above. Seems more correct that way, as they were not formally made part of the Greater German Reich. And no this is not for the sake of Panonian - just seems more accurate. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't follow? Substitute the Militarbefehlshaber? If you're suggesting deleting the flags off all of them, and having infobox entries empty for the sake of PANONIAN, I couldn't disagree more. I think a German flag on a German occupation zone makes sense, these people answered directly to ministries in Berlin, and with all the confusion on that article, uniformity and clarity are definitely a good thing. -- Director (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Shall I personally go around and substitute the Militarbefehlshaber on all of them? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well basically what I'm saying is I feel strange advocating the use of the Nazi flag, but since its common practice to use a German flag on a German occupation zone (go figure..), I think it ought to go back up until there's a real reason not to use it. PANONIAN is perfectly capable of "debating" in perpetuitas to keep it out, no question, so there's really no point in awaiting some sort of agreement from him. To quote his own words, he's apparently a "patriot" defending "Serbian statehood". -- Director (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry Director, that was an accident. I had a couple of edit conflict warnings but they only showed me that I'd reloaded my own text. Please go ahead.. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Buckshot, um, was this an accident? :) -- Director (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think the proper article title is clear - as close an English translation as one can get of the official German military title, Gebiet des Militärbefehlshabers in Serbien, which appears to be Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, though we may have to call out the German speakers for expert views. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is good to have your perspective, and I certainly appreciate having these discussions in front of at least some of the wider MILHIST community rather than on the article talkpage with only two or three other editors. The current article title issue is that whilst I am relatively happy with the current title, we have editors interested in moves to both 'Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia' and 'Serbia (1941-1944)'. I certainly don't think the second one is appropriate, and I'm pretty ambivalent about the first one. We have already got a 'Names' section which doesn't contain any explanation but does have a number of different names used by a variety of WP:RS to describe this territory. I for one am comfortable with including 'Nedic's Serbia' in the first two or three lines of the lead. I agree with the legal limbo observation, and I believe the sources make it clear that is exactly why it was in limbo. Thanks for your time and effort. Given the outstanding issue of the article title, would you mind having a look at Talk:Serbia_(Territory_of_the_German_Military_Commander)#Official_name_for_the_Territory_referred_to_as_.27Serbia_under_German_occupation.27 and Talk:Serbia_(Territory_of_the_German_Military_Commander)#WP:COMMONNAME as regards the title? Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
(od) That's the problem - this wasn't a country/state, so arguably it shouldn't have a country/state style flag. This is the nearest formal flag to match the article title and the titular leadership of the territory. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- In my experience, subdivisions and territories and such can and do use a flag of a country that they're administered by. It doesn't imply they're countries on their own. In addition to the other German occupation zones, here's an example of an Italian one in Yugoslavia . I mean, its common practice. It could be changed, of course, but that doesn't mean it should be changed. I submit the diffs as indicating that this is usually done and that users and readers generally do not judge it implies the status of a country. I also don't see it, and Peacemaker can vouch that I am the last person to try and represent the territory as something other than what it was. In fact, quite the opposite. I think it emphasizes the subordinate status of the territory and its direct administration by Germany. -- Director (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's a completely annexed and incorporated province, Director. And therefore is not a good example. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- My point was that its not a country, and yet it uses a flag of a country without implying any such status. In that respect its perhaps an even better example than the other half-dozen articles. I've never seen a single article to use a personal flag in an infobox. Btw, when I introduced the flag I was under the impression it wasn't unilateral . -- Director (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I understand you having that impression, and my apologies if I have moved the goalposts, but having looked again at Kroener and discussing with Buckshot06 I feel the point is that the Germans had a lot of different structural arrangements across their sphere, and we should be focused on getting this one right, not necessarily drawing on examples from other articles that may or may not be right themselves. We know we are right about this one, and I'd like to stick to that. My view is that the Military Commander's flag is appropriate (he was the supreme authority, regardless of how convoluted the German chains of command and control might have been). Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- My point was that its not a country, and yet it uses a flag of a country without implying any such status. In that respect its perhaps an even better example than the other half-dozen articles. I've never seen a single article to use a personal flag in an infobox. Btw, when I introduced the flag I was under the impression it wasn't unilateral . -- Director (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's a completely annexed and incorporated province, Director. And therefore is not a good example. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Buckshot06, I accept your proposals. Note that I already proposed creation of new infobox here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Serbia_(Territory_of_the_German_Military_Commander)#Proposing_compromise Perhaps you know who can create new "Occupied territory infobox" that can cover this subject? I also would not object to usage of flag of Militarbefehlshaber. Also, Buckshot06, there is similar problem in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Government_of_National_Salvation_(occupied_Yugoslavia) DIREKTOR added new infobox there too and I do not agree with following things related to this infobox: 1. that infobox is named "Infobox former country" and this article speaks about puppet government, not about country - note that I also proposed creation of new infobox that would cover the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Government_of_National_Salvation_(occupied_Yugoslavia)#Proposing_compromise 2. infobox states that this was "Puppet government of Germany" (in English, this would mean that this government governed Germany, which is simply ridiculous). 3. flag and coat of arms used there were symbols of Serbia, not symbols of the government, so I think that usage of these symbols there is not a best option. 4. I do not see why infobox about government should have a map of the territory that it governed - map could be moved to other part of the article showing territory under government jurisdiction, 5. description below the map ("Administrative subdivisions of the Government of National Salvation") is wrong - these were administrative subdivisions of the territory that was administered by the government, not subdivisions "of the government". 6. Belgrade was not "capital of the government", but capital of Serbia - it was a location of headquarters or seat of the government. 7. currency was currency of Serbia, not of the government. PANONIAN 04:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Panonian, let's focus on finishing this article's issues first, and then work on other articles. The issues were (a) flag, which we seem to be coming to a consensus on, (b) article title, where we seem to have a consensus on Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, and (c) the infobox. If I understand your position Panonian correctly the problem is not the use of the actual infobox but the title the infobox template has. In all other respects, the 'former country' infobox fits the requirements we have here. It is my belief that we should not get hung up about what titles templates have, and we should definitely not worry about using this infobox just as long as it has all the parameters (that is =name, =formal name, =capital, =population etc) that we need to illustrate the entity's characteristics. All we're doing is not having to create another template - we're being more efficient.
- Once we've come to a definite consensus on this article, we can examine Government of National Salvation. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Buckshot06, I accept your proposals. Note that I already proposed creation of new infobox here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Serbia_(Territory_of_the_German_Military_Commander)#Proposing_compromise Perhaps you know who can create new "Occupied territory infobox" that can cover this subject? I also would not object to usage of flag of Militarbefehlshaber. Also, Buckshot06, there is similar problem in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Government_of_National_Salvation_(occupied_Yugoslavia) DIREKTOR added new infobox there too and I do not agree with following things related to this infobox: 1. that infobox is named "Infobox former country" and this article speaks about puppet government, not about country - note that I also proposed creation of new infobox that would cover the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Government_of_National_Salvation_(occupied_Yugoslavia)#Proposing_compromise 2. infobox states that this was "Puppet government of Germany" (in English, this would mean that this government governed Germany, which is simply ridiculous). 3. flag and coat of arms used there were symbols of Serbia, not symbols of the government, so I think that usage of these symbols there is not a best option. 4. I do not see why infobox about government should have a map of the territory that it governed - map could be moved to other part of the article showing territory under government jurisdiction, 5. description below the map ("Administrative subdivisions of the Government of National Salvation") is wrong - these were administrative subdivisions of the territory that was administered by the government, not subdivisions "of the government". 6. Belgrade was not "capital of the government", but capital of Serbia - it was a location of headquarters or seat of the government. 7. currency was currency of Serbia, not of the government. PANONIAN 04:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
PANONIAN, there is just no way we will be duplicating infoboxes because you do not like their name. The exact wording in the name of the infobox template are irrelevant. This was explained to you. By three people. At least twice. There was no country called "Serbia" during WWII, and do not confuse the issue by using the term in an undefined manner, etc. etc. I mean I've said all this about twenty times... -- Director (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I have to say this. This entire thread has been turned into just another way for PANONIAN to restart the same discussions for the twenty-fifth time, now that he cannot effectively do so on the article talkpage. There are real issues to discuss here, like the flag etc, but with PANONIAN here WP:DISRUPTING the discourse by hitting the 'reset' every time, this is pointless. Until the issue of this user's behavior is addressed, I really think there can be no discussion or resolution. -- Director (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hold your horses Director. This thread was started by User:Peacemaker67. It appears to be reaching consensus. If necessary, other administrators and I will no doubt be willing to enforce that consensus. It is also unfolding under the view of all the WP:MILHIST coordinators, who will no doubt be willing to take action if necessary themselves. People have to be willing to approach administrators if a reasonably reached consensus is breached. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've said I'm not engaging with sort of thing here, so I'll just say that I agree with the move to the official name for the article as per response from Buckshot06. I have asked two WP:Translators to look at the relevant section of the talkpage and provide their views on the accuracy of the translation. For the record, I would prefer to see the Militarbefehlshaber flag in the infobox because I consider it the most appropriate one for this article. I also understand from the above that Buckshot06 is suggesting the infobox former subdivision IS the most appropriate infobox here. It is the one we are using currently (although I note PANONIAN doesn't agree with it, and wants a custom one). Am I representing your responses correctly, Buckshot06? Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Escort Group (naval)
I'd like to request that any willing editors interested in Royal navy operations in WWII take a look at Escort Group (naval). In respect to the RN in WWII I think this an important topic to which (at the moment) this article does not do justice. I'm afraid my knowledge means I do not have overview of general RN operations to fix this article (or the books to reference)(I'm pretty tightly focused on Captain class frigates), at the moment the article covers how the Escort Group concept was developed but does not have that much on how it was actually used operationally. --Thefrood (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Best expert though he focuses on up to and including WW I is User:Simon Harley. Approach him for guidance, but beyond that it will probably have to be a matter of WP:SOFIXIT now or in the future. Remember that while specific elements of the English-speaking navies are a little sparsely covered, we've got great, gaping gulfs on, for example, the Portuguese or Dutch navies in the C18 or C19. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, as this is WWII and User:Simon Harley focus is "up to and including WW I" perhaps not the best person to contact? As to doing it myself as I indicated I do not have the reference material, I could supply some detail with references related to the participation of Captain class frigates in Escort Groups but this would only represent a very small part of a much bigger picture hence why I was hoping someone with a more extensive library would take up the challenge. --Thefrood (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Battle of Coutras
Came across Battle of Coutras while doing something else? This is embarrassingly unencyclopedic and seems to have some POV issues. I'm not sure it is salvageable in its current form. Could someone with an interest have a look? - not really my area of expertise. Thanks in anticipation. Monstrelet (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to be mostly a copyvio from here sadly. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've re-expanded the article with a translation from French Misplaced Pages, but would be grateful if someone could check it over. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
"Gaps" in the nations task forces
I was looking over the list of task forces for the various nations/regions and noticed that the following countries/regions seem to have no place in the current structure scheme of things:
- Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Leichenstein, and Switzerland
- Portugal and Andorra
- Belgium and Luxembourg
The first set could be combined into a "Central Europe Task Force" or something similar. Portugal and Andorra could be combined with Spain to form an "Iberian Peninsula Task Force". 64.6.124.31 (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Belgium and Luxembourg could possibly be combined with Netherlands to form a Benelux task force, subject to consensus of course. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Andorra would be a hard one to place sense it is ruled partially by the French President and defense is equally the responsibility of the French and Spanish.--MOLEY (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion about Taliban/Insurgent casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) infobox
There's currently a discussion (which I started) about whether it's appropriate to use a casualty figure derived from the List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan article in the infobox of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) in the absence of a specific reference for this, and where there is a reliable source saying that there are no reliable estimates for Taliban casualties. All comments at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox would be great. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Belzec Trial
I've just translated this article on a Nazi war crimes trial - please feel free to check it over. Some of the translation involved legal terms that I'm not totally familiar with. I also didn't expand on current plans for a retrial as that could be sensitive. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Requesting references/fact-check for new article
Found Paul Ooghe whilst doing New Page Patrol. It's an article about a Belgian World War I veteran who passed away in 2001. It's currently unreferenced but well-written, and I suspect that any references will be Belgian or at least from that part of Europe, and I don't know where to start looking. If anyone is interested in helping, I'd appreciate it. Will be crossposting this at WikiProject Belgium. - Jorgath (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- For "Belgian" read French or Dutch. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I actually can speak and read French, but I don't know where to look for French-language Belgian newspapers or scholarly articles. A WikiProject Belgium contributor helped though. - Jorgath (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Soldiers by war category discussion
This at CfD may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
German formations
After consulting the archive Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_106#German_formations I have begun to move the Wehrmacht divisions from (Germany) to Wehrmacht; while moving the Bundeswehr units from (Germany) to Bundeswehr. Going through the discussion one thing struck me - that there is some misconception about the amount of Armys Germany actually had- in total there where 8 for the whole of Germany (listed below) and not less then 38! for smaller entities of the Reich.
- Army of the Holy Roman Empire 1422-1806 - Reichsarmee or Reichsheer
- Army of the Holy Roman Emperor 1618-1804 Kaiserliche Armee (the english wiki article Kaiserliche Armee got it wrong)
- Army of the Deutscher Bund 1821-1866 - Bundesheer (also the name of the Austrian Army from 1920-1938 and since 1955 again.)
- Army of the Deutsches Reich 1871–1919 - Deutsches Heer
- Army of the Deutsches Reich 1921–1935 - Reichsheer
- Army of the Großdeutsches Reich 1935–1945 - Heer
- Army of the Federal Republic of Germany since 1955 - Heer
- Army of the German Democratic Republic 1956-1990 Landstreitkräfte
and what must be understood the current one (Heer) does NOT see itself as a successor to any of the above and for units of the German military there is a need to establish more disambiguation then German Empire, Wehrmacht, Bundeswehr... thoughts? noclador (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Noclador, is my summary of the Heer in the intro to German Army adequate, in your view? I had a crack at untangling this since 1945. Also, are you saying that the current Heer does not see itself as the successor of the 1955-90 West German Army? - seems a bit of a stretch.. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- the current Army doesn't see itself as successor to the 1955-1990 one as it is still the same. Maybe I presented it in a confusing way - as the current Heer and the 1955-1990 Heer are the same and I thought it is clear that it is not a successor to any of the above. If we would go with the image current German Army has of itself, then we have to write its article, with only fleeting mentions of th other Armies above. I.e. the German wiki article about the current Army doesn't mention the Wehrmacht Heer; the German wiki treats the Wehrmacht Heer and the current Heer as two entirely different entities. For the German Army of today - the various Armies before them (or besides them in East Germany) are like the Armies of completely different nations; and should be kept separate like i.e. British Army is kept separate from the French Army and the Italian Army... I now read the intro to German Army article and fixed some factual errors and reworded it. I also went through German Navy (fixed errors in the intro) and had a look at Luftwaffe... which is a disaster! the following three paragraphs need to be removed entirely: World War I, Interwar period and World War II - that is way to much of another nations Luftwaffe! If you look at German Navy, that is how it should be. Also Heer needs a rework to reduce the erroneous connection with former military formations the Heer is not connected with. noclador (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding German Army, it is my view that the current state of the article is reasonably OK. The thing is the article is at German Army, and thus needs to cover the various German armies - making as you allude to clear about their separate status in regard to each other. The German army is very much connected to itself, as you see from histories of the German Army linked in the further reading or references (Stone, for example). We need to be careful of removing perfectly valid historical continuities simply because official lineages created in Bonn in the 1950s do not agree with them. Both need to be presented in a valid way, because WP:Misplaced Pages is not censored, and it would also create a WP:NPOV issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- well, indeed - there at German Army can be an article covering the various Armies in detail, but it should not cover one alone - therefore split out the Heer of the Bundeswehr; a compromise solution? noclador (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- That would produce a very complicated set of articles from the English-language naming point of view, and an argument could be made that 'why shouldn't it cover the actual army today alone.' Also, just because de:wiki does it that way does not necessarily mean that en:wiki has to do it that way. I'm not myself worried very much either way, but I would strongly suggest we wait for further opinions. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- well, indeed - there at German Army can be an article covering the various Armies in detail, but it should not cover one alone - therefore split out the Heer of the Bundeswehr; a compromise solution? noclador (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding German Army, it is my view that the current state of the article is reasonably OK. The thing is the article is at German Army, and thus needs to cover the various German armies - making as you allude to clear about their separate status in regard to each other. The German army is very much connected to itself, as you see from histories of the German Army linked in the further reading or references (Stone, for example). We need to be careful of removing perfectly valid historical continuities simply because official lineages created in Bonn in the 1950s do not agree with them. Both need to be presented in a valid way, because WP:Misplaced Pages is not censored, and it would also create a WP:NPOV issue. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- the current Army doesn't see itself as successor to the 1955-1990 one as it is still the same. Maybe I presented it in a confusing way - as the current Heer and the 1955-1990 Heer are the same and I thought it is clear that it is not a successor to any of the above. If we would go with the image current German Army has of itself, then we have to write its article, with only fleeting mentions of th other Armies above. I.e. the German wiki article about the current Army doesn't mention the Wehrmacht Heer; the German wiki treats the Wehrmacht Heer and the current Heer as two entirely different entities. For the German Army of today - the various Armies before them (or besides them in East Germany) are like the Armies of completely different nations; and should be kept separate like i.e. British Army is kept separate from the French Army and the Italian Army... I now read the intro to German Army article and fixed some factual errors and reworded it. I also went through German Navy (fixed errors in the intro) and had a look at Luftwaffe... which is a disaster! the following three paragraphs need to be removed entirely: World War I, Interwar period and World War II - that is way to much of another nations Luftwaffe! If you look at German Navy, that is how it should be. Also Heer needs a rework to reduce the erroneous connection with former military formations the Heer is not connected with. noclador (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this guy notable?
I'm not sure if Steve Smith (general) meets WP:SOLDIER. Major General of (as far as I can tell) an Army Reserve division. Not sure if he's had any WP:GNG-satisfying coverage, his common name makes google searches difficult. I'll leave it to you guys to decide. The-Pope (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:SOLDIER states division commanders are notable automatically if they commanded the division in combat, I believe. —Ed! 13:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think it says all officers who have held generals rank. I also note it says that just achiving this is not notable, its still requires RS to establish notabilty. It says that if they have achioved generals rank they should have recived sufficant coverage. So without sufficant coverage no he is not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- As it stands, the article doesn't indicate how or why he's notable. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have tagged the article with a notability template and notified the article creator of this discussion. The-Pope (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Must be notable he has to have his medal ribbons repeated! makes you wonder if we should gain consensus to ditch medal displays like this. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- "We" have had that discussion many times in many places. There are strong supporters of ribbon displays. To date, consensus has not been reached. Although tempted, I'm not going to start yet another discussion. (And yes, the ribbons in the table were too big. I've made them smaller.) Pdfpdf (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Must be notable he has to have his medal ribbons repeated! makes you wonder if we should gain consensus to ditch medal displays like this. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure General Smith has done some notable activities. Perhaps an inquiry to his unit will provide a biography of him. Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- He was awarded AM For exceptional service as the Commander Joint Headquarters Transition Team Iraq, Assistant Commander of the 1st Division and Commander 9th Brigade. Similarly, people are not awarded CSC and US Legion of Merit for no reason. Have a look at his official bio. Yes, I think he satisfies notability guidelines. However, at the moment, the article does not make that at all obvious! Pdfpdf (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- What are the AM and CSC? You need to be aware that the US has sort of a sliding scale for medals awarded to General Officers compared to th ose given to lesser grades. I've seen Legion of Merits awarded to Command Sergeants-Major upon their retirement, but the same award for a general is an unexceptional end-of-tour award. So I wouldn't say that those automatically confer notability. And I don't even know what the medal inflation is like now. As a two-star though, he should be notable just as a general officer. Or did we deprecate that guideline?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- AM is 'Member of the Order of Australia' (equivalent to a British MBE), see ] for more info, only 1,024 awarded in the Military Division. CSC is the Conspicuous Service Cross, a fairly significant award of which only 731 have been made. It recognises outstanding commitment to duty or outstanding application of exceptional skills, judgment or dedication, in non-war-like situations, see ]. I would say he meets notability guidelines in combination with other matters, such as rank etc Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- What are the AM and CSC? You need to be aware that the US has sort of a sliding scale for medals awarded to General Officers compared to th ose given to lesser grades. I've seen Legion of Merits awarded to Command Sergeants-Major upon their retirement, but the same award for a general is an unexceptional end-of-tour award. So I wouldn't say that those automatically confer notability. And I don't even know what the medal inflation is like now. As a two-star though, he should be notable just as a general officer. Or did we deprecate that guideline?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- He was awarded AM For exceptional service as the Commander Joint Headquarters Transition Team Iraq, Assistant Commander of the 1st Division and Commander 9th Brigade. Similarly, people are not awarded CSC and US Legion of Merit for no reason. Have a look at his official bio. Yes, I think he satisfies notability guidelines. However, at the moment, the article does not make that at all obvious! Pdfpdf (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have tagged the article with a notability template and notified the article creator of this discussion. The-Pope (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- As it stands, the article doesn't indicate how or why he's notable. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think it says all officers who have held generals rank. I also note it says that just achiving this is not notable, its still requires RS to establish notabilty. It says that if they have achioved generals rank they should have recived sufficant coverage. So without sufficant coverage no he is not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
to my way of thinking without the references showing independent coverage of the subject, he fails the notability. WP Soldier gives guidance as to whether its worth starting an article but any article needs that GNG base to stand on. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I created the page because I thought as he is the Commander of the 2nd Division (all elements of the Army Reserve are members), as well as commanding a variety of other military units (9th Brigade, Royal Tasmania Regiment and the 4th/3rd Battalion, Royal New South Wales Regiment) and because he is 1 of a small group still serving with the RFD and the fore mentioned AM and CSC and the Officer of the Order of St John. The US Legion of Merit is only awarded to Australins for joint service with an american unit in some way who distinguished themselves. MAJGEN Smith is also the Deputy Chairman of the Board of St John Ambulance Tasmania. If it is decided to delete his page then so be it, but I think he is sufficiently notable. Nford24 (Talk) 11:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- It might be worth checking for references in the Hobart Mercury. With a CV like that, it seems reasonable to assume that he would have received some coverage in that newspaper. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- For heaven's sake! The guy is notable, and anybody who gets off their bum (translation: butt) and looks can confirm that in 30 seconds (or less). Notability is NOT the issue.
- The issue is that, currently, the article doesn't sufficiently state his notability. Hence, I've removed the "Notability" template, and replaced it with the "Under Construction" template. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- It might be worth checking for references in the Hobart Mercury. With a CV like that, it seems reasonable to assume that he would have received some coverage in that newspaper. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
RAF Jurby
While browsing RAF Jurby it appears some of information may be copied from this "Kniveton, G. Manx Aviation in War and Peace. Douglas, Isle of Man, The Manx Experience, 1985" (it does not have a ISBN) other editors have also noticed (there is information on the talk page). Does anyone own this book?
Gavbadger (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
A-Class review for Boeing 757
The A-class review for Boeing 757, an aircraft used by military operators including the Mexican Air Force, Royal New Zealand Air Force, and United States Air Force, is now open at: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 757. Thanks in advance for any input! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
move/split request at Luftwaffe
At Talk:Luftwaffe#needs to be broken up a discussion is underway on a proposal to split the current article Luftwaffe. If you wish to participate in the discussion, please go there and read the proposals and arguments given so far. noclador (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
WT:FAC#Subject matter experts and reviews
Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Recruiting subject-matter experts to help with content reviews sounds like an excellent idea!
- If/when we can get a solid pool of experts on call, perhaps we should consider asking them to comment on the A-Class review for an article as well as (or instead of) the FAC? There's no particular reason, in my opinion, why the review necessarily needs to take place during the FAC process; an expert review remains an expert review even if it happens internally, and building up a more rigorous ACR process will have the benefit of providing such reviews for articles that don't get taken to FAC (for whatever reason). Kirill 04:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- The support at FAC is so strong that something's likely to happen. I think I know where Raul is coming from in suggesting that one or a few people should be in charge: some of this is new, and there are potential downsides. Of course, success has a thousand fathers (per JFK et al.), so if this turns out to be cool, we'll get mixed results. So I completely agree, Kirill, that we need to be looking at A-class too, because we'll do it right, and hopefully set an example for FAC and other wikiprojects. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't gone through every comment at WT:FAC but my feeling generally (and I'm speaking with my MilHist coordinator's hat on, not as a FAC delegate) has always been that new FAC practices need to 'trickle down' to ACR -- after all we pride ourselves on it being a fairly short distance to travel...! We've done this to a fair extent with source spotchecks, it makes even more sense to look at SMEs for ACR since content -- rather than niggling stylistic issues -- is one of the main points of our A-Class. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I rather think that subject matter experts should be called upon earlier in the process, say for peer reviews. By the time an article gets to FAC it should be just about perfect. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, per my comment at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that depends on whether we're looking for the experts to contribute to the content of an article, or only to validate it. In the former case, bringing them in early (during a peer review, for example) is a good approach, since we'd want them to get involved before all the copyediting and other polishing took place. In the latter case, on the other hand, bringing them in early may not gain us much, since most articles undergo numerous changes between a peer review and a successful FAC; the text the expert would have validated wouldn't necessarily be the same as the text submitted at FAC, forcing us to find some other means of re-validating it. Kirill 03:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- So far, it seems people haven't decided whether they want to keep the experts (whatever that means) at arm's length ... but that's not very Wikipedian, and people will realize that soon enough. I don't think we're in the business of building walls here; anyone invited to the process is invited as a full-fledged member, with the right and even the obligation to tell us what does and doesn't work for them, how their activity here fits into their vision of the world and of Misplaced Pages. - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think that depends on whether we're looking for the experts to contribute to the content of an article, or only to validate it. In the former case, bringing them in early (during a peer review, for example) is a good approach, since we'd want them to get involved before all the copyediting and other polishing took place. In the latter case, on the other hand, bringing them in early may not gain us much, since most articles undergo numerous changes between a peer review and a successful FAC; the text the expert would have validated wouldn't necessarily be the same as the text submitted at FAC, forcing us to find some other means of re-validating it. Kirill 03:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, per my comment at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I rather think that subject matter experts should be called upon earlier in the process, say for peer reviews. By the time an article gets to FAC it should be just about perfect. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't gone through every comment at WT:FAC but my feeling generally (and I'm speaking with my MilHist coordinator's hat on, not as a FAC delegate) has always been that new FAC practices need to 'trickle down' to ACR -- after all we pride ourselves on it being a fairly short distance to travel...! We've done this to a fair extent with source spotchecks, it makes even more sense to look at SMEs for ACR since content -- rather than niggling stylistic issues -- is one of the main points of our A-Class. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- The support at FAC is so strong that something's likely to happen. I think I know where Raul is coming from in suggesting that one or a few people should be in charge: some of this is new, and there are potential downsides. Of course, success has a thousand fathers (per JFK et al.), so if this turns out to be cool, we'll get mixed results. So I completely agree, Kirill, that we need to be looking at A-class too, because we'll do it right, and hopefully set an example for FAC and other wikiprojects. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Battle of Boykin's Mill
I noticed that this article had an extensive "First Hand Accounts" section, which seems out of place for this article. Should it be removed? Wild Wolf (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Removed. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Japanese "knee mortar"
Hi all! The current knee mortar is redirected to Type 89 grenade discharger. But Type 10 grenade discharger also claims to be called "knee mortar". Isn't "knee mortar" just generic (and incorrect) name for both weapons? In that case the "knee mortar" should be disambiguation page instead of redirect. --Sceadugenga (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- In this case, since there are only two possible targets for "knee mortar", a hatnote should be sufficient. Parsecboy (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Army history
Was nosing around when I came across this article. No intro, no sources, just a couple of footnotes which don't indicate the full title of the source being used. Maybe this should be put up for deletion or redirect to Military history page? 76.7.224.171 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's a spinoff of Army. Should be merged there. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
japenese ironclads
I was wondering if japenese ironclads can be part of this project. They are well withen the scope of this project so could someone pleaes make a article about them. Nhog 5/4/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhog (talk • contribs) 18:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- They are—we have articles on Kōtetsu, Fusō, and Ryūjō, which are, to my knowledge, the only Japanese ironclads apart from a couple of ships seized from China in 1895. Parsecboy (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- It might be useful to have a redirect from Japanese ironclad/s and/or List of Japanese ironclads to the Japanese naval shiplist article (List of battleships of Japan), to address Nhog's concern. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Someone suggested the Listen to Britain film page should be brought into the MilHist project
As it's about a WW2 propaganda film, and discusses the British distaste for overt propaganda, the myth of national unity and war socialism in the UK, and its comparison with Triumph_of_the_Will.
Do people agree, and if so, how would I do this? It's currently in the film project, it was rated as start class before I added the stuff about propaganda and the refernces, but I think film buffs have different concerns to MilHist types. Many thanks. Ganpati23 (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure if that falls under WP:MilitaryHistory. The scope on the main page mentions historical depictions in various media forms, including film. That article could be added to this project by adding a MilHistory project banner on its talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would say it's probably within our scope, given that it was actually produced during the war (and arguably as part of the war effort) and depicts events during the Battle of Britain; its relevance would thus be even more direct than something like Triumph of the Will, which was a peacetime film (albeit a heavily militaristic one). Kirill 03:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd agree. Incidentally, in copyright terms, I think the PD version of the film at http://archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.38651 would probably be suitable for uploading to Commons if someone knew the right format. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
AfD for No Gun Ri Massacre
After extended discussion, it was decided by consensus years ago that the article on this Korean War incident should be at the plain title No Gun Ri. However, the article was later moved back to No Gun Ri Massacre without discussion. This AfD seeks to restore the earlier consensus. Kauffner (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The Jewish Rifles
I need some advice on an article I would like to start. I am positive there was a regiment in the Volunteer Corps called the Jewish Rifles (perhaps unofficially). Before doing so though I'd like to sound out others because I can find no reference to the nomenclature anywhere on the Wiki and finding it on the web is just as difficult. I have found this article however: http://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/susser/twrhamlets.htm which confirms there were Jewish Volunteer Units in the rifle corps and my reasoning is that Tower Hamlets had such a comprehensive Jewish volunteer structure already in place that they could well have had a Pals Battalion with an unofficial name. Precedent exists with the London Fusilier Jewish Battalions.
Can anyone provide more information or opinion? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Never heard of the Jewish Rifles. In WWI, there was the Jewish Legion, which was part of the Royal Fusiliers. Various battalions of the Middlesex Regiment had large numbers of Jewish soldiers, because of their recruiting area (East End and North London). In WWII, I vaguely remember two battalions of the Middlesex (40/41 Bn?) being designated Jewish for service in Palestine but I may be getting this mixed up with the Jewish Brigade. Anyhow, the best thing is probably to contact the very helpful people at Ajex. Good luck, Roger Davies 15:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- 11th Tower Hamlets Rifles doesn't seem to have been a very long lived unit. According to this website it had gone by 1864 so if The Times report is correct - only 4 years. Is it a notable unit? NtheP (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)