Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 tasks		AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review		ContestAwardsMembers
Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks
watch · edit · full list
News and announcements
  • Tranche XXIV of the WikiProject coordinators has been elected.
  • The September 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
Battle of Saipan • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war • Yugoslav torpedo boat T6 • Robert Poore • Otto Hahn • Boot Monument • Roswell incident • Busbridge War Memorial • Battle of Big Black River Bridge
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 • SPARS • Operation Matterhorn logistics • USS Texas (BB-35) • John S. McCain Sr.
Peer reviews
Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide • Battle of Sark
Good article nominees
1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Felek al-Din Dündar • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Dabney Coleman • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Tel al-Sultan attack • Sack of Delhi (1757) • Black and Tans • Castlereagh–Canning duel • Ottoman destroyer Yarhisar • Piri Reis • Patrick J. Ryan (chaplain) • George Preece • HMS Regulus (1785) • Italian Campaign of 1796–1797 • Pandour Corps • Central Powers • Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • SMS Otter (1877) • Battle of Köse Dağ • Surface Fleet Review • Xifeng concentration camp • SMS Crocodill (1860) • Polish–Lithuanian relations during World War II • Peugeot 8Aa • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin
Good article reassessments
Battle of Plataea • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • USS Texas (BB-35) • Civilian Public Service • Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,797) • only work on referencing and citation (43,235) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,176) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,917) • work on structure (31,902) • only work on structure (360) • work on grammar (8,175) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,950) • only work on supporting materials (1,291) • assessment (10) • assessment as lists (7) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (5) • task forces added (3) • attention to task force coverage (655)

Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
News & open tasks
Academy
Core work areas
Assessment
Main page
 → A-Class FAQ
 → B-Class FAQ
 → A-Class review requests
 → Assessment requests
 → Current statistics
 → Review alert box
Contests
Main page
 → Contest entries
 → Scoring log archive
 → Scoreboard archive
Coordination
Main page + talk
 → Handbook
 → Bugle newsroom talk
 → ACM eligibility tracking
 → Discussion alert box
Incubator
Main page
 → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects
Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs
Membership
Full list talk
 → Active / Inactive
 → Userboxes
Awards
Main page talk
 →A-Class medals
 →A-Class crosses
 → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources
Guidelines
Content
Notability
Style
Templates
Infoboxes
 → Command structure doc · talk
 → Firearm cartridge doc · talk
 → Military award doc · talk
 → Military conflict doc · talk
 → Military installation doc · talk
 → Military memorial doc · talk
 → Military person doc · talk
 → Military unit doc · talk
 → National military doc · talk
 → Military operation doc · talk
 → Service record doc · talk
 → Militant organization doc · talk
 → Weapon doc · talk
Navigation boxes doc · talk
 → Campaignboxes doc · talk
Project banner doc · talk
Announcement & task box
 → Discussion alert box
 → Review alert box
Template design style doc · talk
Showcase
Featured articles 1508
Featured lists 149
Featured topics 32
Featured pictures 543
Featured sounds 69
Featured portals 5
A-Class articles 686
A-Class lists 40
Good articles 5,551
Automated lists
Article alerts
Most popular articles
New articles
Nominations for deletion
Task forces
General topics
Fortifications
Intelligence
Maritime warfare
Military aviation
Military culture, traditions, and heraldry
Military biography
Military historiography
Military land vehicles
Military logistics and medicine
Military memorials and cemeteries
Military science, technology, and theory
National militaries
War films
Weaponry
Nations and regions
African military history
Asian military history
Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history
Balkan military history
Baltic states military history
British military history
Canadian military history
Chinese military history
Dutch military history
European military history
French military history
German military history
Indian military history
Italian military history
Japanese military history
Korean military history
Middle Eastern military history
Nordic military history
North American military history
Ottoman military history
Polish military history
Roman and Byzantine military history
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history
South American military history
South Asian military history
Southeast Asian military history
Spanish military history
United States military history
Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare
Medieval warfare
Early Muslim military history
Crusades
Early Modern warfare
Wars of the Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic era
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War
Related projects
Blades
Espionage
Firearms
Pritzker Military Museum & Library
Piracy
Ships
edit · changes
Shortcut


    Requests for project input

    [edit]

    Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight RfC

    [edit]

    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. TarnishedPathtalk 07:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Siege of Gerona (disambiguation)

    [edit]

    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.

    Requested move at Talk:Russian-Livonian War (1480-1481)#Requested move 26 September 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Russian-Livonian War (1480-1481)#Requested move 26 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Help reviewing my Article on the Battle of Muddy Flat 1854.

    [edit]

    Draft:The Battle of Muddy Flat Please reach out to me if anyone is interested. It's really cool. The United States actually participated in the war of the Taiping Rebellion and teamed up with the British and Taipings against the Qing Dynasty who hired pirate mercenaries to help them. Thanks. Historyguy1138 (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FAR for Rudolf Vrba

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)#Requested move 2 October 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)#Requested move 2 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions#Requested move 19 September 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions#Requested move 19 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:September 2024 Lebanon strikes#Requested move 1 October 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:September 2024 Lebanon strikes#Requested move 1 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 24 September 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 24 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Module:Infobox military conflict has an RfC

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    Request for input at Talk:World War III

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Civilian Public Service

    [edit]

    Civilian Public Service 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) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Prisoners of war in World War II

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:2023 Wagner Group plane crash#Requested move 15 October 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Wagner Group plane crash#Requested move 15 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Saint-Inglevert Airfield

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    My rewrite edit of Wikipedia’s Bombardment of Greytown page

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    Input needed for consensus on articles

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    Talk:List of World War II flying aces

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    Mini-drive on articles needing supporting materials

    [edit]

    Hi all. I've been thinking recently on our backlog at Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials which currently stands at 1,337 articles. These are articles that have been assessed (either manually or by the MilHistBot) as just needing an image, infobox or similar to achieve all of the B-class criteria. I don't think it would take too much effort to clear this category if each of us does a handful. It will also help us to progress towards our top-level goal of having 15% or more of all our articles at B-class quality or above. As a trial I've listed about 100 articles from the category below, listed by our period/conflict task forces (so hopefully there will be some articles of interest to everybody). If this is successful I am happy to list more articles for another mini-drive - Dumelow (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Instructions

    [edit]

    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 (many hopefully will just need an image or infobox) and 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

    Articles

    [edit]
    Classical
    Medieval
    Early Muslim
    Crusades
    Early Modern
    Three Kingdoms
    American Revolutionary War
    Napoleonic
    American Civil War
    World War I
    World War II
    Cold War
    Post-Cold War

    Discussion

    [edit]

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

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    I would say leave them out. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    As do I, this changies nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Slatersteven (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I don't see a compelling reason to include any of them, regardless of national origin. Intothatdarkness 12:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Just using the dictionary definition. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It still wouldn't be a war... These simply are not wars. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Even when there was some violence, "war" is used only as a metaphor. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I find your logic peculiar and remain unconvinced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    hyphen or dash in Category:Torpedoes_of_the_United_States?

    [edit]

    Many years ago Bliss-Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo was moved to Bliss–Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo, hyphen to ndash, but the rest from those two people are not, see the Category. Should the Mark 8 be moved back, or should the other Bliss-Levitt torpedoes move changed like the Mark 8 was?Naraht (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Good question. In any case, I think there should be consistency among the titles in Category:Bliss-Leavitt torpedoes. Dicklyon may have been at least partly mistaken in his edit summary ten years ago. Apparently, Leavitt was an engineer who worked at the E. W. Bliss Company, and the person named E. W. Bliss was not really a co-designer of the Leavitt-variant torpedoes. It is not a two-person attribution, since Eliphalet Williams Bliss died before Leavitt designed these torpedoes. Instead, it is a "company-/–person" construction. Here, "Bliss" seems to refer to a company, not a person, while Leavitt was a person. This seems like more of a model name or description of a subtype (the Leavitt subtype) of torpedoes produced by the Bliss Company. SMcCandlish may have some expertise on this question. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found one source referring to "the Bliss-Leavitt Company", but the article about the E. W. Bliss Company does not say the company ever had that name, and I suspect it did not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no recollection or explanation of how I came upon that one and not the others. Here is a book with "the Bliss-Leavitt Company of Brooklyn", whether that's the actual company name or not. Later it was just Bliss, so clearly two names joined, even if one is a company, so the en dash is most appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It needn't be a two-individual-human-person relationship. That is, there being two parties joined/divided by a dash doesn't require that the parties be equal or of the same sort. E.g., one could write of Musk–Twitter negotiations and legal disputes in the run-up to his purchase of the company. One could also write of a Putin–MAGA alignment of interests and of Trump–NATO animosity. The fuction of the dash is to conjoin two distinct entities in a context, as collaborators or antagonists: Dunning–Kruger effect, Mexican–American War. It doesn't imply anything about the nature of the parties (in the abstract or in comparison to each other).

    Anyway, I agree this category of Bliss–Leavitt things should be named consistently. The dash exists for this sort of construction, though it tends to get pushback from MILHIST and other people, due to the hyphen being more common in source material (not because a hyphen is more semantically correct/sensible/useful in an academic and encyclopedic register of writing, but simply because journalists and military-history book writers tend not to use dashes at all, other than unrelatedly as parentheticalizing puncutation in a sentence, but even then they will usually use an unspaced em dash for that).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    When a unit changes name

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement

    [edit]

    The US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement is up for renewal by the end of the year. It is unlikely to make the front pages here, but should be big news in the UK. If UK-based editors could keep an eye out and alert me when it happens, that would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It depends if the orange one gets elected again: there may be considerably more to to keep you amused. Like the ending of US contributions to NATO. I can imagine (or not) the front pages of the Daily Mail: "Scandal: Starmer accepted tickets to Taylor Swift gig 6 months ago!" "CIA and MI5 cuddle up again!" "Still no British planes on our aircraft carriers!" "Bake Off goes underground: Strictly filmed in nuclear bunker!" I'll keep you in mind. MinorProphet (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Decapitalisation of AEC Armoured Command Vehicle

    [edit]

    Yet another unsourced attempt to impose WP:MOS over WP:RS at Talk:AEC Armoured Command Vehicle#Requested move 19 October 2024 Andy Dingley (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding a notification here about that discussion seems appropriate, but the wording of such a notice should be neutral per WP:CANVASSING. People with any opinion should feel encouraged to participate in the discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    November unreferenced article backlog drive

    [edit]

    Hi all. I'm not sure if anyone is planning on taking part in the Wikipedia-wide November 2024 unreferenced article backlog drive? If so this is a dynamic list of all MILHIST articles tagged as having no references (currently stands at 1,861 entries). The only two articles tagged as unsourced BLPS in the project are Vincent W. Patton III and Mieczysław Gocuł. Would be great if we can reduce these numbers, but appreciate people are busy doing good work elsewhere too - Dumelow (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&oldid=1252477670"