Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 79

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 74
• 75
• 76
• 77
• 78
• Archive 79
• 80
• 81
• 82
• 83
• 84
• 90
• 100
• 110
• 120
• 130
• 140
• 150
• 160
• 170

Army Air Corps

Greetings from WikiProject Disambiguation. The article Army Air Corps was formerly about the British unit of that name. This was wrong for a majority of the links there, so an editor wisely moved it to Army Air Corps (United Kingdom) and made Army Air Corps a dab page. That caused it to show up on the list, and I set about disambiguating 400+ links. Most of them were obvious, but I found some odd cases, and ended up confused on some points.

US: According to United States Army Air Corps (and several other articles), the U.S. Army Air Service was renamed U.S. Army Air Corps on July 2, 1926. However, there are many uses of the term "Army Air Corps" prior to that. I assumed that this was just sloppy use of "Army Air Corps" as a retronym to refer to it's predecessor agencies, so I changed them to United States Army Air Service (not just piped, but changed the text) save one from 1917 which I changed to Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps. However, I then stumbled across Erwin R. Bleckley. Bleckley received a posthumous MoH after he was killed in France on October 6, 1918. The header of his MoH citation says "U.S. Army Air Corps". AIUI, the header of the MoH citation (the part preceding the word "Citation") is official text, copied and pasted from some official source, and therefore I don't change it, even when I have confirmed it's wrong (as with William D. Port). Is this a case of the Army itself using the term "Army Air Corps" as a retronym, or did the term "Army Air Corps" have some official meaning in 1918?

Also, for references 1942-1947, I linked to United States Army Air Corps rather than United States Army Air Forces, even though in many cases the latter is more accurate. I decided it is too hard for me to tell, so if the earlier editor used "Corps" I am letting that stand.

UK: According to Timeline of the British Army, the Army Air Corps was formed September 1, 1957. I find many references to Army Air Corps from WWII which are clearly UK not US. The article James Fitzmaurice (pilot) says "He joined the Army Air Corps in 1919". When was "Army Air Corps" first used for a British unit? What does the 1957 date refer to? The info in the timeline is confusing.

Also I was stumped by Solder wick, which contains no hints to distinguish US v UK.  Randall Bart   Talk  00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the UK Army Air Corps was re-formed in 1957, having previously existed during World War II, the post-WWI reference might be to some of the Army cooperation squadrons which the RAF had at that date. I'm trying to use the London Gazette to track down details of Fitzmaurice, but no luck yet. David Underdown (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Special projects/Top Ten Team

Who is interested in helping get the ten most-read milhist articles to FA standard? The list is here and discussion is here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Special Projects Department is recruiting

University history students (or from other departments if adventurous) willing to undertake both off- and -on wiki tasks should sign up here. Buckshot06(prof) 07:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Eric Cole

I noticed that an article for Eric Cole had been put up for DYK, as initially written the article focussed on his (brief) first-class cricket career, but having done a brief bit of digging on his army career it looks as if he may be notable for that too (and his army career lasted much longer!). He picked up a Mention in Despatches at Dunkirk (though he was actually nominated for an MBE) for keeping 1 Corps comms going until the HQ was evacuated, and was wounded on the beaches. He then picked up a CBE at the end of the war, the Gazette notification says it was for services in Italy, but the original recommendation describes his unit as Land Forces Greece, and talks about him being Deputy Chief Signal Officer (British) at AFHQ from 28 September 1944 - 30 April 1945, prior to that Army Signal rep at combined Operations (where he is described as being largely responsible for the development of army signals techniques in amphibious ops), and afterwards OC 6 Airborne Divisional Signals. I assume therefore that the Gazette is right in attributing the award to actions in italy, and that Land Forces Greece is a bit of a red herring? I'm only working from the Gazette, and the digitised copies of the citations which are available from The National Archives website (for a fee if you don't happen to be onsite at Kew), so it's all a bit OR, and would be grateful if anyone knows of any other sources to flesh this out a bit. He was later promoted to major-general, and appointed Director of Telecoms at the war office in 1958(-61). David Underdown (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I managed to find a Times obit which filled in most of the detail, but if anyone can find anything else it would be very useful. David Underdown (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review

I have requested a peer review of the CIA main article, in order to gain some new perspective on the page. I invite anyone interested to please contribute their thoughts. Please find the peer review page for it here. Thanks! (Morethan3words (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Transcluded to the Milhist peer review list here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

We've a backlog of 40 articles at Category:Unassessed military history articles. It would be great if someone with a bit of time on their hands could assess them. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Central Intelligence Agency now open

The peer review for Central Intelligence Agency is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Mercy (AH-4) now open

The peer review for USS Mercy (AH-4) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Finland (ID-4543) now open

The peer review for USS Finland (ID-4543) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) now open

The peer review for USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for USS Lenape (ID-2700) now open

The peer review for USS Lenape (ID-2700) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Help with a ribbon

On the final row here exists a ribbon called the Republic of Korean War Service Medal. I can't find the ribbon here, and was curious if anyone knows why. It may be that we don't have an article for it yet, but unto my experience these things are sometimes at pages whose names differ from the one provided elsewhere, and I just want to make sure that the latter scenario isn;t the case here. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the Korean War Service Medal, (a.k.a. Republic of Korea War Service Medal) but with the red and blue symbol from the Flag of South Korea stuck in the middle. Not sure what that's about. jwillbur 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight

Spotlight
An article covered by this WikiProject, Kristallnacht, is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 00:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell: The SS was involved and counts as a military unit. The article doesn't fully cover their role. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} We're not experts on the topic, just organisers. We have done a few minor fixes but can't do much to add to the factual content. Please feel free to join in, as I'm about to start on the facts...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Airborne March (Airborne Wandeltocht)

Hello. A heads up that the article Airborne March is up for AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Home Protector AfD relisted

The AfD discussion for Operation Iraqi Home Protector has been relisted in an attempt to reach a consensus. Comments on whether to keep or delete this article are encouraged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Iraqi Home Protector. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military brat (U.S. subculture)

I've nominated an article that I helped achieve FA status for FAR. I don't believe that this article is worthy of being an FA article anymore as garbage has creeped into it over the past year. My writing skills are not really up to FA standards and I'm honestly not motivated enough to restore this article to where it should be. If anybody else wants to work on it, feel free to do so.Balloonman (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion Needed

Warsaw Ghetto is tagged as being within our projects, scope, but I am more incline to reomve the tag since the key military event there was the uprising and that has its own article. Thoughts on this? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In case we cover the uprising there is no need to tag the ghetto.Wandalstouring (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wandalstouring. I'm removing the tag. -- saberwyn 12:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it WP:MILHIST

HI folks some thoughts are also required on another subject myself and Michael have been having a discussion here is the content

Malyshev Factory Hi. Why did you remove the milhist box from talk:Malyshev Factory? This was one of the three main tank factories of the USSR, and is the main tank producer for Ukraine, responsible for significant military vehicles (BT tank, T-34, T-54, T-64, T-80UD, T-84).Michael

Is it MILHIST ? see the articles for Boeing & Ford both made Aircraft and Armoured Vehicle during WWII , Boeing is still involved in Aircraft Manufacture but they are not classed as MILHIST. While the Factory may produce Military Equipment does that qualify it for MILHIST I do not believe so if you then consider they number of companys world wide who produce equipment for the armed forces the list would be neverending Jim Sweeney

[...]

I see your point, and at least the associated tank design bureau (KMDB) should remain in the project. Is there a guideline defining the scope for military industries within the project? Lockheed, for example, also has a milhist box. —Michael

Having checked further BAE Systems are listed as WP:MILHIST ,but Alvis Vickers who they merged with are not, also the three companies who produce the Eurofighter Alenia Aeronautica, BAE Systems (again) and EADS are listed as WP:MILHIST while the holding company they work througth Eurofighter GmbH is not. Should arms manufactures be in the project? If so where do we draw the line , as stated above the list could be endless Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it would depend on whether the group is primarily into weapons manufacture. Raytheon and Lockheed, for instance, would be in automatically in my book, but I wouldn't put Boeing in since I think of boeing as commercial jets and such and OFrd as creating lackluster vehicals. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There are great mergers among military manufacturers worldwide. Boeing is very much a military manufacturer, especially after it acquired the military aircraft firm, McDonnell Aviation, which had acquired Douglas (known for tactical fighters and for legendary transports like the DC-3/C-47). Some of its more notable military aircraft include the B-17, B-24, B-29, B-47, B-52, B-1 and B-2 (in partnerships), C-135, E-3, KC-135, CH-46, CH-47, F/A-18 (partnership), F-22 (partnership), V-22 Osprey and AH-64 Apache (partnerships). McDonnell-Douglas did the F-4 Phantom II, among many others. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for Boeing as MILHIST even w/o the (relatively) recent acquisition of McDonnell-Douglas, given its long history of military manufacturing as detailed by Howard above. Even the 707 and 747 were inspired by military transports or bids for same. Therefore I'd probably go for Malyshev Factory as MILHIST as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget mergers. Recall Boeing made fighters in the '20s & '30s before concentrating on civil aircraft. Trekphiler (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it a definition that any company that produces products for military use only is within our scope. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify the above: as long as the company produces some purely military products, it can also produce civilian products. Other than small or very specialized component shops, virtually no company is pure military.

As far as Boeing, forget mergers. Remember the B-17; Germany did. Remember the B-29; Japan did. Remember the B-47; the USSR did. Remember the B-52 and KC-135; the noisy beasts are still flying. It worries me when the third generation of a family has flown the same general combat aircraft type. When I last looked, the B-52 is planned to stay operational until at least 2030; pretty good for a first flight in the early fifties. Anyone want to think a few might hit the century mark?Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I believe Wandalstouring means if it produces some products that are purely military in nature, even if if it produces non-military product as well, that's in scope. I'd go with that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To take the argument possibly to an extreme -what about componies that were only involved in producing military products during wartime - such as the Austin Motor Company, which while more widely known for production of cars etc, did make large amopunts of military goods during WW1 and 2?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To add my AU$0.02 in answer to Nigel Ish, that is an extreme case. There are two places that I see where a line could easily be drawn. (1) companies that are known/ have a reputation for producing military products, or (2) companies that willingly produce military products. An easy way to make the call would be to see if there was a significant coverage of their military production in the company's main article. Either criteria would of course allow some swing either way, but companies that were required or forced to produce military materiel because of major conflict should not fall under the project scope. To go all the way up to the examples in Jim Sweeney's comment at the start of the discussion: Boeing would fall under the project, Ford wouldn't. -- saberwyn 12:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems we have reached an agreement all arms manufactures who are known for there production of military equipment are included in the project Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ammunition Technical Officer

Can someone have a look at the article Ammunition Technical Officer - A couple of editors appear to have added a large chunk of text referring to individual Pakistani Army officers and operations in Liberia to what was previously an article about the British Ary position.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Has already been reverted. Please advise the overenthusiastic editor how to create an article on his rather different topic. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Image of the U.S. Air Force Good Conduct Medal used in a Wikipedia award

Recently I discovered an image of the U.S. Air Force Good Conduct Medal used in a custom Wikipedia award on the page User:BetacommandBot. I don't think it is an appropriate use of the image, and it may even be against U.S. law. Please see the conversation on the issue at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Image:Air_Force_Good_Conduct_Medal_ribbon.png. I would like other people's opinion on whether I am off base or not in thinking it should be removed. Thank you. --Pesco (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is no longer on the page. Honestly, I don't think it's an issue. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is back on the page. The previous discussion has ended, and I've opened up a "Request for Comment" at the talk:Image use policy page. Thanks! --Pesco (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Hoff Moor?

I just came across the article Battle of Hoff Moor, and it reads like a hoax. A massive battle over three pigs? The only google hits for "Battle of Hoff Moor" are two Wikipedia articles (Battle of Hoff Moor and Hoff, Cumbria) and a Wikipedia mirror. There appears to have been a Battle of Hoff in Napoleonic times, but I haven't been able to find any source for a battle of Hoff Moor. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Checked myself and it looks very much like a hoax to me, I would suggest prodding, or asking the author where the sources are or where they can be found, if there are no sources go straight to prodding it. Dreamafter (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have prodded it, and alerted the author. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is not a hoax (sounds hoaxy to me), without goof references we cannot know its notability, which seems very low anyway. Arnoutf (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Brevity now open

The peer review for Operation Brevity is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine) now open

The peer review for Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Star fort

I tagged Star fort for WPMILHIST. Sv1xv (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Roman-Persian Wars now open

The peer review for Roman-Persian Wars is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Verrières Ridge now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Verrières Ridge is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Montana class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Montana class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation naming (cont.)

This is a continuation from the previously unfinished discussion here [1]

Essentially the demand to bring this up again in a wider forum was requested in Talk:Prague Offensive which I wanted to rename the Prague Offensive Strategic Operation (there are several articles that require renaming).

With a large number of proposed articles in the Eastern Front (World War II) planned, I have adopted a scheme for the operations initiated by the Red Army that essentially follows that of the Imperial Russian, Soviet and Russian military historians which specifies

the dominant objective of the operation (usually a major political division, city area, or a geographic reference such as a river or a mountain range)

the scope of operation (large (strategic), medium (operational) and small (tactical))

the type of operation (degrees of activity or passivity)

and finally the noun itself - operation, replacing the overused "battle of", but not battle for.

For the Axis forces, where no operation name exist (there are operational code names), I have adopted the same scheme in consultation with a noted authority on the subject David Glantz, except that necessarily the type of the operation will usually be opposite to Soviet (see further), and named for the major objective which may have been different to that of the Soviet operation.

The hierarchy of operations is clearly and consistently set out for the reader based on scope as follows:

• Place-name type Strategic operation (Front or group of Fronts)
  • Place-name type Operation (Operational) (part of Front or group of Armies)
    • Place-name type battle or alt. battle for (Army or smaller forces, several Corps) (not "Battle of" if I can help it)
      • Place-name type Engagement (Division or smaller tactical combat) (not used yet)

In general this is the naming convention followed in the Soviet and German sources, though the enterprising English editors of the past had converted all German names to "Battle of" (abandoned by Jane's Information Group in the 1970s)

The type is qualified by existing Wikpedia articles which can be expanded as a result of creating new articles by using them as examples, i.e.:

• Air superiority
• Blockade
• Breakout (military)
• Breakthrough (military)
• Counterattack
• Deep operations
• Encirclement
• Flanking maneuver
• Offensive (military)
• Penetration (warfare)
• Pincer
• Pitched battle
• Raid (military)
• Siege
• Surrender (military)
• Withdrawal (military)
• Interdiction
• Raid (military)

These mostly apply to the smaller operational and tactical titles and are so used in Soviet and German sources.

The noun "operation" is needed for grammatical reasons as much as to clarify that the event was intended and may not have involved combat (as every Offensive must) and since use of Defensive as a noun is unusual. A number of types of operations above can be unintended, such as Breakthrough, Counterattack, Raid, or a Withdrawal, all of which can happen with little or no planning and can not be named operations (again so used in Soviet and German sources). In some cases "battle" is absolutely inapplicable, such as the Kuban Air superiority operation which ranged for months over large areas of battlefront airspace.

Some have suggested that the type of the operation, e.g. Offensive or Defensive, should be used as a noun, and no scope need be indicated. However, the suggestion seems ahistorical. Blitzkrieg depended on strategic pincer operations, and to call one the Minsk Pincer means absolutely nothing! After all, the title needs to be able to identify a discrete article subject.

Others have also suggested that there is a guideline which asks to use the most common name. However, what this also ask me to do is to falsify the actual historical name with the name adopted by some brainless book editor in the 50s and 60s who had no clue as to what the actual name of the operation was. It is also counter-productive in that the titles adopted for books try to capture the entire content of the book where as in a reference work what we are looking for are the equivalent of chapter names! It is nonsensical to use for an article title a "common name" that has been used to cover thousands of pages of text, and limiting the Wikipedia editors to 100Kb ;o)

It is unfortunate that in my case most of the articles need to assume the titles of operations created by the Russian General Staff who did not have the English speakers in mind. However, the ultimate argument rests on the English speaking reader's ability to comprehend

Prague Strategic Offensive Operation

vs

Prague Offensive

I have faith in the ability of the mythical "average reader" to master the title if he or she has chosen to delve into the subject of the Eastern Front where neither Kharkov nor Bobruysk, or Konigsberg roll off the tongue by comparison.

The suggestion that somehow the wrong common name is more correct then the correct historical name seems quite absurd to me. If in the case of Prague it is less absurd, in the case of articles like Battle of Kursk it is more so, since the article does not refer to either of the two battles of Kursk, or even fighting anywhere near Kursk! It is so titled because on the wartime newspaper maps Soviets simply called it the Kursk Bulge, with the appropriate bow-like line drawn with the Kursk in the middle. In fact the "battle" encompassed no less then six separate German and Soviet ground, and two air operations!

So, the question is - is Wikipedia about providing a quality reference source of information, or about repeating old absurdities? I am not suggesting OR here because the names of these operations are widely used in sources, including more recent, but obviously less numerous English sources because the "battle of Kursk" had been repeated many times in 50 years before someone had learned to read Russian.

What rule am I breaking by using the correct event name? I have had consensus and "Ownership of articles" thrown at me on top of the ubiquitous naming conventions. Consensus can only be reached where the discussion is not based on established facts! For example it is not possible to establish by consensus the name of The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America because that is the full name of the document regardless of how many times it had been misnamed United States Declaration of Independence. However, where as this was a known document with a title which eventually came to include more then the original 13 states, it is reasonable to arrive at this name by consensus. The names of the Soviet wartime operations were not known for some time, until the 1960s. They had not changed from the time of their execution. How can I be accused of article ownership if the title is a fact of history which I am simply trying to get right. I am not pushing my own point of view, but simply refusing to use what is a misinformed and misused term/s, surely something expected in a reference work.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip Shearer, Skinny87, AskariMark, and myself have tried over and over to impress upon Mrg that this approach is over-complicated, does not suit English phrasing, and needs a good deal more knowledge than the average person simply looking for details of Eastern Front battles may have; as AskariMark said, we have little on the operational level of war or any of the other concepts required to put these titles in the proper context.

Attempts to offer the previous consensus, Prague Offensive or other X Offensive, which retains some of the Russian original flavour while sounding readible in English, have most lately be met with personal attacks. Having looked at the Ru-wiki, it appears that most of their articles retain a short form similiar to ours: Budapest Operation, Belorussian Operation, etc, rather than the long official form which Mrg is advocating. The full discussion can be found at Talk:Prague Offensive. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

over-complicated - How is a consistent and understandable approach I use more complicated then trying to reconcile a diversity of names given to various events derived from book titles over past 60 years?

does not suit English phrasing - actually a two-word phrase is far lees understandable then a four-word one

needs a good deal more knowledge than the average person may have - I appreciate your desire to stand up for the "average guy" Buckshot06, but who is that? Have you conducted some online survey to determine "average" intelligence of people accessing "Eastern Front battles"? In the initial reading of the title, the "average guy" only need to understand four words, three of which are in English. The operational level of war is not mentioned in the titles, and left as "Operation", the significance of the difference between operational and strategic being explained in the article content with appropriate link. Operation is used as a noun.

previous consensus, Prague Offensive - there is no consensus because there was no source provided for the name. What the lot of you have done, is to refuse to accept that the use of Prague Offensive in the article that deals with its strategic execution will create problems with naming of article that really do deal with the operations of troops taking offensive action directly towards, and in Prague. This is the same case for all such operations. As it happens the Prague Strategic operation's four operational level offensives are not named solely Prague, but Dresden-Prague Offensive Operation, and the article for the taking of Prague would be the Battle for Prague, but that is besides the point.

There is a hierarchical relationship between levels of execution in military operations. If any "average" reader wants to find out about the Eastern Front, then they would need to get a concept of the scope of any given event without the necessity of refereeing to David Glantz explanation of how 1941 Barbarossa was an advance from the Atlantic coast to Springfield, Illinois. "Offensive" was, and is deemed insufficient to describe all events just as "battle" is not either.

I will be in contact with ru-Wiki in regards to their use of literary rather then historical names. Wikipedia is a reference and not a literary work. This is often forgotten.

It is not only a work frequently used as a source

but also

Significance in a specified context--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The basic rule is that the title of Wikipedia articles should be whatever the most common English-language name for that thing/event is. As such, the scope and need for new naming conventions for things like battles is pretty small as editors should select the title of the article from the most common name in their reference material. For instance, Battle of Kursk is the correct name as this is by far the most common English-language name for this battle (and, incidently, is the title David Glantz used for his book on the subject). Naming conventions are only needed when different things have the same name in my view (for instance, General Brudenell White and Australian landing ship medium Brudenell White (AV 1354)). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

break1

Ah, well Nick, but have you read the book? Its a large book. Much larger then the article in Wikipedia. It comes with chapters. Nay, its in four parts, with eight chapters including a conclusion, and six appendixes. Each chapter is broken up into 4-8 sub-chapters. He also wrote another book on the subject where the Battle for Kursk, is that of the Kursk Bridgehead. Not that I'm advocating renaming the article from Battle of Kursk to Battle of the Kursk Bridgehead. In fact it should be called Operation Citadel because that is what the Germans called it, and it was their Offensive.

However, you have not added anything to what I had not already known. I know the naming policy, however, policy is expected to be applied with common sense, and that is expected to prevail in every case, and not become a rubber stamp. So, what I object to is using names that were chosen without any consideration for their historical relevance, which are inappropriate for a reference work because they were used for book titles, inconsistent, and which were used at the time when the actual names of the operations were not known to the authors. Common sense suggests that a good reference work would provide the reader with the most complete and updated information on the subject, and not repeat ad-nauseum old information. That is why the 1911 version of Britannica is available free of charge online these days ;o)

Now, the problem with "most common name" usage is that old, incorrect names are likely to be the most common because they are old, and have been repeated more in print then the new correct names. In actual fact since the 60s the publishing policy has been for editors, not authors, to use vaguely distinct book titles to create product differentiation. The truth is that nothing written in English is likely to have a "common name" if published in the last 40-50 years! David Glantz can afford to title his book Battle of Kursk because he is David Glantz.

The clarity in the rest of the operations is far from lacking. The Kharkov battles were so confused that I had to completely rewrite one intro, and rename them, with Buckshot06 objecting as usual though the offer to discuss was there for weeks without a response. Some Soviet strategic operations don't have books published on them at all in English, so get no coverage in Wikipedia. Most of the smaller operations, I'm talking Front (Soviet Army) here, so about the size of the entire British-Commonwealth forces in North Africa, don't have any English literature.

What I am looking for is a consistent approach to titles across a project that will include hundreds of articles. I would like to arrive at this consistency now, rather then to have to "fight battles" over a period of two years.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I own the book and have read it, and imagine that the title was chosen because it's the common name rather than Glantz throwing his weight around - if people don't know what the book's about as it has an obsure title they're not going to buy it. While I also have some issues with Wikipedia's naming policy (eg, the country whose official English name is Timor Leste being called East Timor) it's on the whole a good policy and generating your own titles because you don't like the common English-language name is basically original research. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we need to use the common English-language names for things. If the Russian-language or German-language name is something else then that's basically irrelevant here. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I'd support mrg's argument in that there are hardly any 'common names' in English for most of these actions beyong Stalingrad, Kursk, Berlin, and one or two others. The majority have either 1) not been differentiated or 2) have been briefly referred to in translated German memoirs. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A minor comment here but if these are not official names but constructs to describe the activities then only proper names would take capitals, so it would be "Prague offensive strategic operation". Have you considered the naval approach as in "action of date"?GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood you Graeme, so just to clarify:

• there are official and unofficial (literary) names for all Soviet operations
• there are code-named names for some German operations, the rest being known for Orders Report names in the Unit, Date, Place format that had been abbreviated to the Place-only use in English literary use.

I have considered the naval approach as in "action of date", and will use this for the German operations where they are named as the Soviet operations. So if the Soviet operation is (example) Bobluysk offensive operation, the German would be 1943 Bobluysk offensive operation. However, there were very few such occasions. Usually the German operation would be a Bobluysk counteroffensive operation, or a Soviet one, such as the two counteroffensives to Operation Citadel. In fact there are many useful words in English that can, and were used to distinguish operations. The Courland forces evacuation was a German naval operation that can also, I guess, be named Naval battle of Courland by the less imaginative. There was the German 17th Army withdrawal from Crimea as part of the Crimea Camapign (World War II), named Battle of the Crimea (1944) in Wikipedia despite it being so named in the Army Group orders, but is not so known in German memoirs (I wonder why), etc. The lack of consistent approach means that the earlier part of the campaign for which the Crimea Shield was awarded is not in Wikipedia, and is not even listed as part of the campaigns for the 17th Army! In stead its covered by the Siege of Sevastopol (1941-1942) (renamed by me from the ubiquitous "Battle of" which is not the same as the vicious two year campaign. The price of rigid adherence to Wikipedia policy rather then a strict adherence to best practice in history research.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

{<<--} in principle I think that the guideline is correct in pointing out that operational names make bad names, in the case of code names because they are not descriptive, and in the case of operational names because as they are not a neutral name there is a built in bias towards the side from which the name comes. In the case of recent US names there is also a propaganda aspect to operational names (Operation Just Cause) but on the day the US Army proposed the name "Operation Thanksgiving Massacre" for what became "Operation Phantom Fury", and which we name Second Battle of Fallujah, PSYOPS were out for lunch![2])

Some times, unfortunately as in the case of Operation Goodwood and sometimes fortunately, as in the Battle of Bulge we are bound by common names. The path that mrg3105 seems to be leading us down would for example rename many of the articles in the Invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) or would it become Baghdad Strategic Offensive Operation? Both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Baghdad Offensive Strategic Operation would encourage an more Coalition centric view than we currently have. After the Battle of Kursk as the initiative on the Eastern Front passed more and more firmly to the Soviets and (as earlier in the war on the Eastern Front), for many of the events there is little written about them in English, I see no harm in naming the article as for example the Prague Offensive. But I do not think it is a good idea to name the articles after the full Soviet operational names for the reasons stated in the guideline the compromise of using the geographic name and offensive is enough unless there is a common English name for the events that occur because of the operation, although in the case where an offensive causes a specific battle or siege, as in the case of Siege of Breslau I still think descriptive names are better -- unless there some other common name in English -- than using the name of the Soviet Operation that took the city. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat taken aback by your argument Philip. I must say that my respect for you has taken somewhat of a bruising.

Firstly I had never suggested adoption of the Soviet way of naming operations throughout the Military History Project as a whole, so I do not appreciate being "painted red" based on the hypothetical examples I had given elsewhere.

Secondly, it seems to me you are simply showing bias in denying that the Red Army had a large number of operations that were strategic in nature and scope as compared to the Western Allies of the Soviet Union. You are in fact forcing the Soviet, and Russian historical record to comply to what? Made upp names by English editors based on German memoirs? Wikipedia policy? Your own bias? All sorts of adaptations have been made in Wikipedia to accommodate far more contentious article naming, but here there is seemingly an impasse because I suggest using the actual names of the operations as their users knew them. Consider this, the operational plans are a form of record, and records are archival literature, and archival literature are a form of reference also, just like any completely unreferenced German memoirs of the mid-1950s. So, I am asking to adopt the name on the cover of the original source for the subject rather then the very Original Research one by other, highly biased sources. Advocating continued use of these sources really, if unwittingly, places you as a supporter of "bad history" that I know you are not! I can only urge you to consider the neutrality of your position, and reconsider your opposition to my proposal.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to consider edits like this one Why is the battle "CLEARLY about the strategic operation and not just the battle for the city)" you are pushing against an open door. But the edit that accompanied that comment was removing the battle of Berlin from category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II and including it in category:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II. Why did you not leave it in the category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II and just include it in the new Strategic operations category?

My example about the Baghdad Offensive Strategic Operation is not as silly as it seems given what you wrote in the section Talk:Hundred Days#100 Days and the Waterloo Campaign again and Prague Offensive#RFC: renaming Prague Offensive to Strategic Offensive Operation about the Waterloo campaign as I presume they were hypothetical examples as was the Baghdad Offensive Strategic Operation it was to make the point that such a name encourages a one sided view of a battle/campaign as is made clear in the guideline. It was not my intention to "painted red" but to show those who are perhaps not a familiar with "old battle fought long ago on a distant field by people we know little about" as they are with a heavily televised current war, the potential bias that creeps into articles that use names assigned by one side in a war. We can not avoid it in wars that involve English speaking people (because of common usage trumping NPOV) but we can for many wars between non English speaking people. It is not just the name of the articles but the us of those names in other articles and operational names are not the best to use when there are other naming possibilities available. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

break2

I'll leave the hypotheticals out of it for now.

You will note that the "Battle of Berlin" article is written BACKWARDS, which is why I had changed it to strategic operations. It actually needs to be split! The earlier parts 4 and 5 that talk about the combat for and in Belrin, need to become "Battle for Berlin", and the later parts that discuss the operations to encircle the city, all begun on 16 April before fighting in Berlin started, yes those "Battle south of Berlin" and "Battle north of Berlin" and the one that actually completed the encirclement which you have deleted, need to become articles in their own right. Now, the funny thing is that you changed the name of the Seelow-Berlin Offensive Operation back to "Battle of the Seelow Heights". You know I suppose, that it lasted two weeks? You know that Seelow Heights was but a part of the operation, albeit one that was significant in the German account? So, how about a neutral approach where the operation is told from start to finish, and not just the "heroic" four days covered by the current article? You are the one who talks about "potential bias that creeps into articles", but here the creep is rather obvious, and yet you have said nothing about that.

It is not a bias in naming events "that use names assigned by one side in a war"! If the operation was a Soviet one, then why should it be named something else? If I write a book titled "History of Sydney", will it need to be renamed "History of one of Australia's largest cities" so the other state capitals don't get upset?! The Soviet operations were appropriately named with extreme prejudice! It was war Philip. As I said, if the English and American histories of not include any offensives during the Second World War, then there is not much I can do about that, but I am not concerned with the West European Theatre. The war in the East was conducted with extreme "bias".

In any case, do you seriously suggest that the "Battle of Berlin", when first named in 1945, was so named to avoid bias against Germans?!!! Please do not embarrass yourself in this display of political correctness. It was used because it was a BIG LOUD NAME that the public wanted, and journalists delivered. It fit in neatly with Battle of Britain; you know the German strategic air operation Adlerangriff to bomb UK into submission? I see that its pityfull stub is being merged into "Battle of Britain" so it can get a more "neutral" treatment there, right?

In any case, what is needed now is to assess, and put into order what articles and content are in Wikipedia within the scope of Eastern Front. Much of it is fairly low quality. You are helping in keeping it that way. Thanks--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an inappropriate thing to say Mrg. We are all trying to improve WP, though we may disagree about exactly how the final result should look (and for heaven's sake, we're discussing titles, you think Philip is going around ruining the text?). Really, the problem from my perspective is this: that these big 'X Strategic Offensive (or Defensive) Operation's are truly convoluted English. The smaller ops, Memel Offensive Operation, which are less known, I'm not so worried about. But when we get a Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation or Prague Strategic Offensive Operation, four to five word titles when Prague Offensive or Berlin Offensive etc is in common use, it seems ridiculous to impose these convoluted official titles on things when there is a simpler, in-use, term available. We are not trying to impose 'Berlin Campaign' or 'Dnieper Campaign' which would probably be the best English description of what went on, so we're prepared to compromise, please meet us half-way and consider not 'X Strategic Offensive Operation' but 'X Offensive'. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with improving WP! You are trying to "improve" Soviet/Russian history because you are not seemingly satisfied with improving my English usage. Is your problem now with the Dnieper river being too long? One has to get the general area of the "battle" within a reasonable few hundred kilometres, I think. I mean, how would you feel if I said you live on one of the South Pacific islands? What !@#$%^& compromise?! There were no 'Berlin Campaign' or 'Dnieper Campaign'. Do you even have a concept of what a "campaign" is? In this case the campaign was Campaign in Europe 1945 (1 January - 9 May). It included several strategic operations. Philip removed the several of these "smaller ops", therefore obliterating the ability of the reader to know these ever existed! I.e removed any reference to them. Do you think this qualifies for "ruining the text" in a reference work? And who gave you the right and licence to say what the names of the operations should be just because you have a problem with longer-then-two word titles? You really must get to the National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa more often.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Calm down Mrg. I repeat, neither Philip nor I are trying to damage the encyclopaedia (nor were AskariMark or Skinny87, who you've managed to insult too). You don't have exclusive ownership over the articles, and even if mentions were removed it was probably ignorance rather than malice. Me in a South Pacific island? Technically, that's correct. Campaigns? Let us define our terms, no not according strictly to the Soviet General Staff interpretation laid down 30 years ago, but the general English understanding: I'll quote you: Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1973: 'A continuous series of military operations, constituting the whole, or a distinct part of, a war.' That's my understanding of a campaign, and if you think different, I suggest you consider writing Campaign (Soviet military) - then we can benefit from that interpretation of it. The right and licence? I'm working from accepted English usage, rather than trying to inappropriately fit Soviet formalism into a language that does things in a simpler fashion. I'll ignore your insulting comment about visiting libraries. (Actually, on a side note, next door to the National Library is Defence House and the Defence Library - much better for that sort of thing). Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to explain why I removed them here but I think that is better done on the talk page of the appropriate article -- The comment comment in the history of the article covers it, (even though I should have written red and not read!)[3] But one of the reverts I made is I think relevant. mrg3105 you changed the

:::::::The Battle of the Seelow Heights was one of the last pitched battles of World War II.

to

:::::::The Seelow-Berlin Offensive Operation was one of the last pitched battles of World War II.

I don't think this is an improvement for all the reasons we have discussed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

break3

I intended to insult since I find people writing on subjects they are unfamiliar with fairly insulting in a public domain...to my intelligence, and to expectations of the readers.

Well, as a helpful aide to a civilised discussion, STOP INSULTING PEOPLE PLEASE; me or anyone else! We wish to have a discussion, which is not helped by insults in any direction. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to read references to Wikipedia articles in forms; the reason I started writing here. Sorry, I don't accept the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1973 definition of campaigns (the title has too many words!), or this dictionary, but when you visit the Defence

I'm sorry, I find this hard to understand. You're contesting an Oxford dictionary definition raised by a native English speaker, when you, by your own admission, are working in a second language? Can you at least not admit the possibility that Philip and I may have some greater experience of the way English flows, and thus have some justification for our points? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Library, do some research and expand the article, and then I won't need to define one in Soviet military use since its the same for all militaries as you will find, and has been for centuries.

I fail to understand what "accepted English usage" has to do with names of events in other languages. There are archival documents that are so named. They were not named with "accepted English usage" in mind, but that is true for many documents and many events. You can not simplify a historical name, which is a fact, because you, or someone you think is the "average reader", are having a problem getting their mind around the title of the article! The titles are far more

We are creating the English version of Wikipedia. We are trying to agree on the best basis for naming an article accessible to general readers. We are not bound to translate exactly the Russian term if there is a more appropriate English one available, especially one, as AskariMark said, that may be confusing to people looking at the articles with little specialist knowledge. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

descriptive also. It has nothing to do with being either Soviet or "formulaic", something applicable to any use of language with a grammar structure. I have patiently explained the reason for every word. I have also patiently explained how the "common usage" names came to be. I have also explained that this, Wikipedia, is not a literary work, but a work of reference. Where as an author writing on smoking may name the book "Don't blow smoke in my face", in Wikipedia this title can invite a wide variety of articles from idiom, to sarcasm, to the chemical definition of smoke, and the explanation of its dynamics in terms of physics of pressure in gasses. This, is the point of having a reference work! People are expected to find all and complete descriptions of any given subject, and if the means of delivering smoke requires use of personal use filtered tobacco burning implement (non-inhaling), then so be it even if most people will call commonly it a cigarette, failing to distinguish it from other Category:tobacco burning implements. The editors or a reference work have a higher then average standard. It seems to be an unwritten assumption, but maybe it needs to be made explicit. I see your arguments as a means of reducing this standard to a far lower common denominator. Given that surveys of individuals interested in military history have suggested a higher-then-average intelligence quotient, I see no problem in presenting even the more complex concepts in military history, art and science.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

break4

You need to calm down, mrg3105. Your personal attacks are growing ever more extreme. I'd like to request this get taken to an arbitration commitee, as it's obvious no consensus will be reached. Skinny87 (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I' afraid you may be disappointed. The arbitration committee has no authority in renaming historical events, unlike journalists and book editors--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that per WP:CON that we remain with the naming convention system we have at the moment, as the consensus is clearly on the side of remaining with that system. Skinny87 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Since plans are afoot to take this off the project community general discussion so I can be dealt with elsewhere for "rocking the boat" (in newspeak "being disruptive"), I have posted my final reply on the matter on my own talk page. Skinny87, please do not misunderstand, or take it as insult when I say to you that it seems to me you have not read either the naming conventions, or the reason for which they were created in the first place. The most important thing to remember in any business, including Wikipedia editing, is not the business, but the customer. If the interpretation of Wikipedia naming conventions (as suggested above) was followed in general English speaking society, it would have the same status and development in the World today as North Korea. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC) I don't ask for support, however, when I find that recommendations in education institutions are made expressly against use of Wikipedia as a reference work I edit, it makes me shudder at the waste of time by thousands who contribute to it under the false belief that they are providing something for the "general reader", the argument editors who try to introduce some quality into the process are continuously "beaten over their heads" with!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why can't redirects be used to allow for a consistant naming without changing the actual titles? Isn't the whole point to make it easier for readers to find the articles they are looking for? Being forced to use a controversial name for a battle or operation just because it is the name of the main article just dumps the whole internal linkability feature into the trash. How hard would it be to add a section it the main articles that list the alternate names? --Colputt (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

break5

While I support and commend mrg3105’s desire to develop a better way to title articles on military conflicts than to call everything a “Battle” – and have agreed that the Soviets have a better system (in the sense of being more structured, precise and rational) than the haphazard usage in the West, I am still waiting to see him offer evidence of any scholarly consensus – beyond himself and Mr. Glantz, that is – of a broad and preferential usage among modern English-language historiographers for naming WWII contests of arms according to Soviet usage. Lacking that, he lacks any justification for imposing it upon Wikipedia. Where mrg3105 and I part ways – aside from his penchant for ad hominem attacks on anyone who declines to march arm-in-arm with him and the Great Soviet Encyclopedia as the sole possible form of serious debate – is that I believe in enabling general readers in finding articles on subjects of interest to them, where they can learn more about the subject, including the Soviet perspective that should naturally be an integral part of such articles and to which mrg3105 has commendably and diligently worked to add to them. Mrg3105, who openly and curiously scoffs that readers of any sort exist beyond experts in Soviet historiography, appears to believe that in his Wikipedia these articles should be rigorously hidden from discovery by any but that handful of experts who already know enough about the subject to not need to bother reading general encyclopedia articles since they have at hand – and in their heads – the works of astute professionals like Glantz, Erickson, and others.

As someone who was already working with the likes of John Erickson, Harriet Fast Scott and her husband Bill, along with a handful of others who were promoting a more accurate understanding of Soviet military history, art and science – and familiar with even the earliest writings of Glantz – at a time when mrg3105 was still seriously playing with marbles, I can safely assert that there is less need for me to “read history” than there is for him to learn the basics of civility, both scholarly and otherwise. Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People would be a good place to start reading.

I find it easy to work both with professional scholars who are subject matter experts and eager amateurs on the same subject; unfortunately, I find mrg3105 to be neither, but rather only a smart troll. My experience with trolls is that the best way to deal with them is not to feed them. Accordingly, I’m going to recuse myself from further butting heads with someone who is too knowledgeable about subject matter that is, in the great scheme of things, only trivial, and too unknowledgeable in such subject matter that is truly important – how you treat other human beings. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see it a large part of the dicussion is whether Soviet offensives should be named using the Soviet nomenclature when there is no other common English usage. As the vast majority of these actions have no commonly-used English name (other than the handful that I've mentioned elsewhere in these comments), it seems correct that a translation of the Soviet terminology should be used. It certainly seems ludicrous that articles should be misleadingly named "Battle of..." when a) this completely misrepresents the article's contents, and b) there is no precedent for using such a name (see Battle of Memel). Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Esdrasbarnevelt, I can't speak for Philip Shearer or AskariMark, but my principal concern is not the minor operations, but the big, complex, convoluted titles for the major operations. Looking through Mrg3105's list of Soviet operations is going to be a bit tiring for the newbie anyway, without having Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation or such like at every turn. What I would like to propose is nominating a list of the Strategic Offensive Operations to be simply turned into 'Offensive', as per Prague and Berlin, and, apparently, the Russian wikipedia itself (which mostly uses 'operation' rather than 'strategic offensive operation'. I have no difficulty with Memel Offensive Operation and I take your comment about Battle of Memel being actually a wiki-ism (like the old 'Battle of Romania' title we had for a while). Appreciate your thoughts on a half-way compromise here. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, a think it would be a good idea to have some kind of list identifying which operations actually have common English names for starters (e.g. Battle of Stalingrad, which really covers several German and Soviet offensive and defensive actions, or the Battle of Kursk, which covers Operation Citadel and in some accounts additional Soviet counter-offensives, all of which should in any case be made clear in the lead of each article). We then need to come to a consensus on what to call the rest of them. My own instinct is to suggest that 'strategic' has to be in there in some form in order to differentiate between these major, strategic-level operations and the individual operations that make them up. Although in principle I'd favour the full Soviet title where there's no common English one, I'd suggest perhaps we could use something along the lines of, for example, East Pomeranian Strategic Offensive (rather than East Pomeranian Offensive or East Pomeranian Strategic Offensive Operation), if perhaps everyone could agree on that - my main concern would be to arrive at a framework that Mrg3105, yourself and everyone else who has put serious work in on content could work within. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the lines you propose for compromise are workable, but in terms of including everybody who's worked on it, like AskariMark I'm reaching the point of being totally fed up with Mrg3105's conduct, despite having worked closely with him for some time. The latest dispute he's decided to create is ignoring -WP:UE and proudly denouncing WP:OWN on the Infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957, and since I created that page and its predecessor, it's one I've been keeping an eye on, and do not want him ignoring guidelines on. I would like to work toward a consensus, but I do not think Mrg would be willing to budge from what is written in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Thus I can only think of revisiting this at a later period. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What surprises me most about this discussion is that I have not seen either AskariMark or Buckshot actually contributing in any meaningful way to the creation or editing of articles on the Eastern Front, and yet speaking as if they are sole determinants of what and how should be done. I also find it amazing that Buckshot keeps referring to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, while I have never used it as a source of reference, and have consistently used names for operations supplied by Craig Crofoot, as complied by David Glantz, who has had his books reviewed by John Erickson before his passing, i.e all fairly competent English speakers.

I think the proposal by Esdrasbarnevelt is a sensible one. As you may have noticed, I am not a freak who wants to rename Battle of Berlin, Battle of Kursk or Battle of Stalingrad. These articles can not possibly cover all the operations they encompass, but can be extremely valuable as overall introductions and summations to the less well known sub-operations, and useful in article size management. The issue of use English is a thorny one, and ultimately it is difficult to use English in areas where English is not the language of writing history.I would not like to revise this at a later period, and woudl hope that a consensus can be reached as soon as possible.

Just to humour you Buckshot, what would you call the Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation? Keep in mind this is the name used in all relevant books by Glantz which currently represent the bulk of English language material on the operation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(od)I think my saying two paragraphs above is the first time I've ever referred to the GSE - following on from AskariMark. I would argue that my longtime effort to try and improve Red Army falls within the Eastern Front area, and my creation of 7th Army (Soviet Union), 9th Army (Soviet Union), 10th Army (Soviet Union), raising of 12th Army (Soviet Union) from a stub, creation of 13th Army (Soviet Union), 22nd, 29th, 33rd, 35th, 51st (to A-class), 58th, and 11th Guards Army rather would count as 'contributing in a meaningful way,' not to mention the scores of division articles, additions of sections to battles, etc. Lower Dnieper? The Lower Dnieper Offensive; but we'd have to involve other people and seek other opinions. You and I can't settle this on our own. Buckshot06(prof) 03:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone needs to "justify" their efforts on an article or have an established number under their belt, otherwise no one would be able to contribute anything. I'm going to side with Buckshot and Skinny on this one. These "strategic operations of" are simply convoluted ways (that I've never come across asides from mrg3105's usage. It's needlessly complicated, breaks standards with every other article that we have, ignores common English naming, and violates neutrality by having has all operations named solely in regards to the Soviets, disregarding whatever the other combatant called it. Oberiko (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous statement. How can others have opinions on naming operations that were not their own? How can one be neutral about an offensive? How else can a strategic offensive and its components be distinguished from each other if they have same names? There are no standards in every other article because every other article is either named "Battle of" or "Operation", neither of which are particularly useful in a reference work. Most Soviet operations don't have English names. David Glantz informs me that about 40% of them have never been covered in English yet. In nay case, you completely ignore what I said at the very start of this proposal. I fully intend to have articles informing about offensives by other combatants as I go, and these will be named based on German, Romanian, Finish or whatever side. The fact is that most are actually not covered either. Worse, we already have the most obvious disregard for what other combatant called operations in the case of Operation Citadel which is referred to as Battle of Kursk.

As to Buckshot06 comments, writing unit articles is not like writing the operation articles they participated in. While your edits are appreciated, unfortunately they rarely if ever add to the substance of the article since your focus is on the orders of battle. I mean you write Lower Dnieper with a ? Dnieper is a huge river, and there were combat operations going on all along its length that year. Planning for operations commonly took at least a month, and better part of 3 months for a major strategic operation, so planning staff at Stavka and Fronts had to refer to front sectors in some way, and referring to the lower part of the river's course is fairly convenient. In fact, it is hardly new. In 1813-1814 there were operations all along the Lower and Upper Elbe, and neither the French, nor the Allies minded using this regional reference. Then there were the even more prominent operations in the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam War. They were collectively referred to as the Mekong Delta Riverine offensive operations by the USN and USA.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is WP:CON and mrg appears to have no support for what he is asking for, might I request that this be dropped, now? We would therefore remain with WP:COMMONNAME and other suitable policies for naming conventions. Skinny87 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A note regarding CIA-in-country articles

I am withdrawing from participation in these, as I do not believe the present structure, introduced by Ernxmedia, is one in which I feel I can work effectively. For those that think they can, more power to them.

There is something called style guide "rules". Please correct me, but I do not remember any discussions that formed a consensus about them being explicit rules. I remember them as a suggestion by Ernxmedia.

In like manner, I believe that putting every country in its own article is unwise. Ernxmedia raised the legitimate issue that certain countries' articles had grown too large for the regional articles. I agree that was true for certain countries, but not universally, and, as I thought, agreed to have links to country entries for complex entries such as Afghanistan, Laos, Iraq, and Vietnam. In the next day or so, I was surprised to see a branch, from the regional pages, to an article for every single country.

I am going to remove all, or most, country-specific entries from my watchlist; with my decreasing participation in Wikipedia, I can't possibly have the time to monitor them all, and the point that CIA is organized on regional lines apparently is lost.

An indirect effect of this is that people, whom I respect as contributors, are saying "there's very little content in CIA Activities in Country X; I'd like to move that content to a general article about some issue in US-Country X relations, or even to generic Country X issues." That has a certain logic, but it causes the CIA-specific material on the country to be lost as far as any reasonable retrieval schema.

It had been my understanding that the countries, for which there was little content, would stay at regional level. In that case, it would be easy to have wikilinks from the regional article to the non-CIA-specific article about the country, without an understandable temptation to get rid of what appeared to be a stub country article.

So, I give up on trying to do anything in the geographic organization. I may stay involved at the organizational and functional levels, or stay purely with country-agnostic intelligence, or just work elsewhere. Call it my problem, but I can't comfortably work in an environment of such anarchy. Bold-revert-discuss can work for an article, but not for 100 or so. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Berkowitz's assessment of this situation and would encourage Ernxmedia to consolidate most information 'up' to the regional entries. Buckshot06(prof) 05:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I removed 101 country articles from my watchlist, and feel refreshed for having done so. I've made my recommendation, as objectively as I can, about what can work and not work as far as article structure. If the structure came back to geographic/regional with branches when and if a country entry is too large, I think that would be good for WP, but I'm not sure I would put any personal work into it. I'm too tired of structural reversions, vandalism policing, the confusion of an intelligence organization history with a general foreign policy history, and related matters. I developed that structure at a time when it seemed helpful in replacing an overflow of conspiracy theory over substance, and providing a systematic means of putting analysis and collection alongside covert action.

My interests are far more focused on analytic tradecraft and technical collection, and a tactical level of special operations. While there are some specific countries of interest to me, such as Sudan, and logically their neighbors, I'm not sure I want the grief of dealing further with the country-level arguments.

Thank you, Buckshot. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06 and Howard,

A few notes:

1. Pulling out the per-country detail to per-country articles revealed that the regional articles are an expository shambles. Revealing this is a service, not a disservice. Regional articles should give coherent summaries of CIA activities in the region, as a region. These are by-and-large absent.
2. I added a style guide which consists uniquely and solely of Howard's breakdowns of what kind of activities an intelligence agency would functionally engage in. The fact that Howard cannot be pleased with his own categorization is unfortunate. The fact that Howard doesn't want to edit the style guide if he doesn't like it is unfortunate. The idea that there should be no style guide at all for a highly structured and focussed set of articles is illogical. What can you do?
3. Howard's latest retirement from the battlefield of CIA in Country X articles was initiated when an editor (someone entirely unknown to me) commented that the content of the CIA activities in Ethiopia article was, in no categorizable way, related to the CIA. It was related to US-Ethiopia Foreign Relations. So I put that content in Ethiopia–United States relations. This left the article empty, so I Googled for "CIA Ethiopia", found one highly correlated and recent news report, and added it to the article. This caused Howard to swallow his cigar and eat his hat, followed by an extremely pointed and emotional "Good day to you, sir!" to me.
4. The fact that an editor who is an expert on Ethopia foreign relations but not a priori interested in CIA Ethopia sees and comments on CIA Ethopia is a design feature. In creating the CIA activities in Country X articles, I took care to tag each article with "Foreign relations of X" and "Foreign relations of US". This draws in Foreign Relations experts for individual countries, and also allows us to channel out content which is Foreign Relations-centric from content which is CIA-centric. It is relevant to CIA if CIA has a specific, sourceable analysis of or opinion about a specific country, or if CIA takes an action which affects US-X foreign relations. Otherwise if it is about US-X, it should go in the US-X FR article. This is just logical.
5. If a region has 50 countries you can't really tag the regional article with "Foreign Relations of country X(i)" for i=1..50, it just doesn't help. As above, it does help, enormously, if you create an individual CIA in X article and tag that.
6. Each country is a country, quand meme, with it's own language, people, culture, etc., and it's own unique relationship with the US. So I don't think it's too much to ask that we have a per-country article, if we undertake to give detail at all, on CIA activities in country X. Every country, if we took the care to examine, would have at least a page of detail, and in general the most obscure countries often surprise with the greatest amount of activity to relate. E.g. what average person would think of Angola as being a huge focus of CIA activiity?
7. The regional articles were too large, covering 20 countries each on average. You just can't do that in 50KB or less and have anything like a historically meaningful amount of detail, given the density of CIA involvement over it's lifetime in global foreign affairs.

Everything about the above sequence of events leads me to believe that splitting out the CIA activities in Country X articles was the right decision.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You have your point of view. I have mine.

If you may remember, around last December, there was quite a feud when another editor decided to redirect away from all subarticles, and it took several weeks to get both to a consensus, with that editor taking a Wikibreak, and a set of more-or-less working subarticles. From that and other experiences, I came to the belief that bold-revert-delete may work well enough in individual articles, but does not scale with topics involving large numbers of subarticles.

At Wikipedia, as opposed to some other venues, there is no particular enforcement of structural or content changes. Now, my habit became, after observing experience, even if I was extracting a single article from the main CIA article or a major subpage, to have a comment on the article talk page for at least a week. Often, I had a copy of the proposed new article in my sandbox, to help people understand what I was proposing to do. No, I definitely and deliberately stopped making bold changes when it came to structure. After observing a good example of moving with careful consensus, Sri Lanka Reconciliation WP:SLR, I saw increasing value to having a real commitment to discussion and consensus on changes of greater than one article scope (e.g., agreement on sources and methods, how to handle POV issues, when to create subarticles). MILHIST did create an Intelligence Task Force that hasn't been very active, but, when I proposed changes to an article set, I tried to put a notice at least on the main MILHIST list. Coincidentally, there were some other proposals for taking material out of a CIA in country X article and moving it into another article. Since I really have no interest in country X, but am interested in the structural issues of national intelligence, I mentioned that the proposed move was absolutely reasonable if one simply wanted to focus on history of country X, or US-country X relations, but that material was not something I volunteered to work upon.

I cannot be responsible for what you decide to do. I can be responsible for a decision that I have seen enough problems with the country-by-country CIA approach that I am unwilling to spend any further time working within it. There are other topics of greater interest to me, where I may spend effort. The best of luck to you in having continuing improvement in the article-by-article approach, because I will not contribute reviews or materials to that structure; 101 country articles are gone from my watchlist.

If you get others to work with you in updating things in your structure, congratulations. I will not be one of them, not only because I do not believe country by country is viable, but we seem to have different interpretations of discussion and forming consensus before taking action. At this point, I am much more focused on things that interest me more, such as more technical aspects of intelligence. It's entirely possible, as I explore alternatives, that I will be happier contributing to in a more structured system than Wikipedia's.

Whether I am emotional or not, it is my choice whether to do any voluntary work. When under things that start out as discussion, and I soon find as a list of "rules" not presented to MILHIST or for a reasonable period of time on a main article list, I find more stylistic clash. There have been several occasions where you moved talk page discussion, in which you were not involved, into a main article; the people in the discussion presumably would have put the material in the article, not on the talk page, if they thought it was ready for the main article. Other things come to mind that suggest you and I have completely different ideas of collaboration and research -- not that one is right or wrong -- but I am not willing to work under yours.

I do not plan in further participation in discussion about the country by country approach. Whatever you argue about it, I have made a personal decision that I will not volunteer to spend time working on it. I am generally withdrawing from situations where I do not see serious attempts to find consensus before making structural changes, and I have other things in my life than being involved in POV wars.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that it's my place to jump in here, but has there been consideration for both solutions? I.e., could Howard continue to develop the regional articles while Erxnmedia does his thing on the sub-regional (and potentially stub) country level? Barring internal links and perhaps a template, it doesn't seem to me that there really needs to be much of an editing overlap.

As a personal example, I've been working on the World War II article, but have had relatively minor input in most of the related articles such as Pacific War, Soviet-German War etc. Oberiko (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd make the observation that the granularity of individual country articles probably doesn't reflect the way that Intelligence operations are conducted. I'd concur with Howard that regionalisation makes a lot more sense, as this is the way that the agency, and its peers in other nations, operates.

Where there is an excess of information it makes sense to have a subordinate article, but the real meat of operations is on a more regional basis, since it frequently involves more than one country. In many cases it would also involve multiple government bodies, and potentially other nations as well.

I would imagine that disaggregating down to the country level renders the article a simplistic list, with little scope to really consider the subtleties and relationships.

I'd also make the point that intelligence operations in any state don't happen independently either, Collections and consequential action has some broader purpose, either international relations, commercial or military, so realistically should probably be considered as a broader article around US government activities.

In terms of information architecture any single country article can then link to a range of others, including an agency regional one.

In the field of Int Ops there is rarely a one size fits all solution, since frequently there isn't even a one size fits all question.

ALR (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Seems like it'd be quite difficult to effectively place things such as CIA actions in Afghanistan which were directed against the Soviet Union, or collaborative efforts with other foreign intelligence agencies supporting/against a third party. Oberiko (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi ALR,

Howard (and anybody) may edit regional articles and country articles. This is Wikipedia: It goes without saying. I don't own anything that I've done on these subjects, I have merely contributed some time to establish a structure which is a particular house of cards that anyone may come in and rearrange at will.

I am not boss of anything and I am volunteering my own time in this regard. The style guide discussed above was prominently labelled in links to it as "Suggested".

While I agree that CIA is organized around regions, each country has a Country Officer, and the more reading I do in this field, the more I am convinced that

1. All politics is local
2. If you take the time, even the tiniest countries and involvements turn out to have deep history and deep localness.
3. The people on the ground on both sides of a conflict (hopefully on U.S. side occasionally) know a whole lot more about the local politics than generally gets printed.
4. You really lose the trees by only looking at the forest. This is a huge and frequent mistake in U.S. foreign policy. Iraq and Iran and Pakistan and Afghanistan each individually have how many ethnicities, how many regions, how many languages, who drew the borders, etc.?
5. Not understanding the local interests will get you burned at the regional level, even and especially if you consider yourself to be a regional player. It would be interesting to know how many CIA officers stationed in Arab countries actually speak Arabic fluently, or know the difference between Arabic and Farsi, Sunni and Shiite. (Or, stationed in Israel, can speak Hebrew and Yiddish fluently, and know the cultural differences between Sephardi and Ashkenazi.) E.g. U.S. policy in Afghanistan was for a long time dictated by interests of ISI in Pakistan. Similarly U.S. policy in Iran and Iraq can be dictated similarly by interests of Israel. Not knowing the region down to the country level well enough leaves us open to the manipulations of the people who actually live there who do. My interest in pursuing this topic to begin with is motivated by increasing the level of our (the society of English Wikipedia readers) understanding, at the country level, of impact and interaction of U.S. institutions such as CIA with the local politics of those countries. You can't do this looking through the wrong end of a telescope.

So IMHO, if you can't do a proper and authoritative job at the country level, there is no way that you will be able to back up to the regional level and say anything that makes sense.

Thanks,

Erxnmedia (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The real point of this discussion is that a number of people now question how workable your schema is. From the nature of your response then it's apparent that either I wasn't clear about how Int Ops would normally be viewed, or we have vastly different understandings of the nature and role of Int Ops.

In the context that you describe I'd dispute the suggestion that politics is local. The agency is acting as one element of the foreign policy of the US, it doesn't work in isolation and it's efforts are predicated around maintaining the relationship between the US and another state actor in the manner desired by the US government. I don't believe that you can present a credible coverage of that by concentrating only on part of what the agency does and treating the effort in isolation from the other bodies within the US government.ALR (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is key. as the CIA geographic articles are focused on talking about one agency and are not meant to cover overall foreign relations. There can be enough unexpected effects to warrant their own article, such as the combination of intelligence analysis and covert action vis-a-vis Indonesia in the fifties and sixties. To me, there are legitimate reasons to have articles about "U.S. foreign relations with country X". That isn't the purpose of this series of articles, which are specifically intended to be an intelligence & covert operations history. The closest things in this series should get to all aspects of foreign policy operations is when the other options are assessed, for example, in a National Intelligence Estimate. Even so, the focus there should be on the process of the intelligence estimate, which can certainly link to other overt action in the full sweep of foreign relations. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind I'd suggest that one needs to be clear about what the objectives of the articles are; is it merely recording the existence of dots or is it joining them up?

Having whatched what's gone on I rather sympathise with Howards frustrations, both in the general and the specific.

These are, of course, merely my observations and everyone is free to do what they will, whether to the benefit of the repository of information or its detriment.

ALR (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with keeping it regional until it WP:SUMMARY requires to be broken off? Surely I can see the case for individual articles on Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba etc., but I think it's going to be fragmented and very overlapping for most other nations. Oberiko (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only does that sound reasonable, it's also what I understood to be agreeing-to when asked about splitting off large articles. I was stunned when I found 101 countries split off. This is not the first time that I agreed to something and found the execution to be much more radical, which, for me, starts to create a problem of trusting someone in collaborative work.

I certainly think that would be the way to go. Consider that the regionalisation of the agency reflects the regionalisation of the State Department, then working in that framework should allow subordinate articles to be broken off where required. That allows them to be contextualised both in relation to the foreign policy and the relationship with other state actors within that region. Doesn't always work, if we consider the SIS actions during the recovery of the Falklands then efforts to disrupt the supply of exocets to Argentina took place in a number of places worldwide, that wouldn't really easily fit into regional constructs, but equally talking about it in articles about Argentina, France, Brussels etc wouldn't capture the Op either.

ALR (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

For me, the objective of the CIA-activities-in-country-X articles is to record activities of the CIA in Country X, by date and by type. The types of activities generally performed by an intelligence that have been identified so far are:

• Intelligence estimate
• Covert action
• Clandestine collection
• Counterintelligence
• Psychological operations

The objective is to give neutrally presented and neutrally categorized information about activities. The more detail the better. I would also like to see this done for other agencies in other countries such as Mossad and ISI, and have added this structure in those articles. I haven't branched those articles because there is much less information than for CIA.

I also think it is appropriate to summarize CIA's relationship with country X in the country X article. CIA does have a relationship which is part of US relationship with country X but is also distinct in some cases, i.e. the relationship established by CIA is not always same (generally different to be more exact) than relationship established by State Dept, and different from relationships established by congresssmen, President, and U.S. sponsored NGO's. Bureacracies have lives and individuals who establish relationships with other bureacracies, and these relationships have timing and lifespan which is not necessarily the same as timing and lifespan of relationships formed by people representing other parts of the Government.

The regional article should synthesize and present the regional picture, which is distinct from the country picture.

There was as of December 2007 a single massive CIA article which had a CIA-as-bad-guy flavor. Howard went to work vigorously on this article and we ended up seeing multiple branches. There are also literally hundreds of CIA-related articles, besides CIA-in-Country-X articles, that Howard disputes and which did not get merged but which are still out there under Category:Central Intelligence Agency.

In the case of the per-country data I think Howard went a little overboard in making CIA look like a branch of the Post Office and not as a force which could be used occasionally rather dumbly for ill. I personally, for example, have spoken with a senior and very much in-the-club CIA official who told me that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked, at President Johnson's insistence. So it's not always the straight arrow place that Howard very persistently paints it as.

So in order to set the record straight, my belief was that we simply needed a very straight and systematic record: By region, by country, by date, by activity type, by source. From which you can summarize and synthesize on top of that what you will, but at the base, you need to gather solid records on individual acts. This is where I see the CIA in Country X articles providing a service.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm afraid that nothing you've said has actually articulated the value of this. It strikes me that it's a bit of an over-reaction to your concerns and in itself probably reduces the information value of the portfolio.

The nature of IntOps do tend to be pretty uncomfortable, but one needs to avoid throwing the proverbial baby out.

ALR (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi ALR,

Not sure what you're getting at. You can still edit up the Regional articles while still allowing for Country X articles to give finer grained data specific to that country.

Also precedent has been established for data-only articles, for example Timeline of Afghanistan (July 2003).

Thanks,

Erxnmedia (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that you haven't really presented any justification other than because I can. I really think they lack any information value whatsoever, except in a small number of specific cases.

But as you say, anyone can pretty much do what they want in Wikipedia, regardless of the value or accuracy of the outcome.

ALR (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've presented my rationale. If it's all noise to you, then it's all noise. You are free to change the structure of the articles, add content, request deletion -- it's up to you. But we definitely disagree, that's clear. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall be dismissive, not having drunk the Kool-Aid, and not having confidence either in your structure or a willingness to work in consensus. I have nothing to prove or show here. As long as there is a country system and a regional system, they are far too easy to get out of synchronization, and I have no desire to contribute in your structure. Incidentally, I agreed with you on the understanding that there certainly could be links, from the regional level, to country-specific articles where there was more mterial than fit into a section of regional documents. There is a great deal of Afghanistan-specific material, but also transborder issues that are inherently regional.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No Kool Aid is on offer. I put some time in on a structure that I liked. It has some benefits which I've tried to enunciate. You and ALR disagree. OK, so change it! I promise I won't lose any sleep over it if you do, because I feel good about what I've been trying to do, but I also know that Wikipedia is a bunch of sand dunes which are subject to constant erosion and displacement -- this is the nature of the Wikipedia experiment. It is what it is. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh gee, oh wow, I am so surprised

The shocking revelation is offered,

I personally, for example, have spoken with a senior and very much in-the-club CIA official who told me that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked, at President Johnson's insistence.

Did you just discover this, and apparently missed the extensive NSA (not CIA) declassifications that document this, the new interviews in McMaster's book, some distinct inferences in the Pentagon Papers regarding CINCPAC OPPLAN 34A MAROPS, and...but why go on, if you don't know the difference in focus among military field organizations, DIA, CIA, NSA, MACV and CINCPAC J-2, etc.? What CIA organization was even in the chain of command or primary reporting for the Gulf of Tonkin? The closest they got was probably the CIA deputy at MACV-SOG, but SACSA was out of the loop.

No, the Post Office was not involved. As you say, there were White House orders, just as much as most of the assassination plots against Castro came principally from Robert, backed by John, Kennedy? Admittedly, the CIA personnel with the assignment had a skill level often comparable to the Three Stooges, but it should be noted that the sniper team came a lot closer than the poisoned wetsuit.

Now, if you want to address non-postal, clearly unauthorized, actions by CIA personnel, in violation both of U.S. law and of the Declaration of Helsinki/Nuremberg Code, Sidney Gottlieb would be a fine starting point. Sam Adams' work on politically compromised Vietnam statistics is informative. James Jesus Angleton wasn't just a loose cannon, but a loose battalion of artillery; Nosenko-Golitsyn crippled U.S. intelligence for years.

Postal service, indeed. No, I'm not given to the sensational, but to the cold documentation that is out there, with or without your personal conversations. I've had a few of those, here and there, myself. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,

Neither am I shocked that there was gambling going on in that establishment, it was just a for instance -- but still one that I found personally shocking at the time, told to me by a guy with a very technical job who was asked to sign off on a conclusion not at all supported by the radar data, data which he was responsible for.

Neither is my focus on highlighting unauthorized actions or even authorized boneheaded actions. My focus is just on, for each country, asking

1. What service was provided, and did we as taxpayers get what we paid for?
2. As visitors or neighbors of the people in that country, what was our collective personal and institutional impact on the people in that place, as played out in the individual actions that were performed (as categorized above) in the course of rendering the service that the taxpayers paid for?

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there are particular reason why the focus in a military history article in a global encyclopedia should be on determining whether taxpayers received value for money for services rendered? How does this square with Wikipedia's neutrality policies and prohibitions on original research? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roger,

I'm just giving you my meta-motivation, I am not proposing that each article should be a taxpayer value study. People contribute to articles for different reasons, without necessarily imprinting those motivations on the articles themselves. For example, there are quite distinct coteries of editors working on the article for Salafism, taking to their edits quite opposite motivations; because of or in spite of this, the article survives and to some extent prospers.

In practice, for CIA activities in Country X, I would like to see something no more or less specific than Timeline of Afghanistan (October 2001). Could we please discuss this in terms of the merits of the Timeline of War in Afghanistan articles? I.e. I see what I did as being exactly as valid and in-the-spirit-of-Wiki as those articles. So please let's first establish the validity of those articles, and then with that as a reference point, discuss the validity of CIA in Country X.

In particular, if you don't like the spirit and design of the CIA Activities in Country X articles, then you should also be criticizing and taking action against the Timeline of War in Afghanistan articles.

Please read this entire section to see what all of my specific structural suggestions were, and the responses or non-responses of other editors to those suggestions.

To give you more of an idea though of what I mean by the "taxpayer value" metaphor, perhaps you can give me your thoughts on the taxpayer value supplied by the individuals discussed in this article, alternatively:

• The Time version, see also Time blog
• NY Times version
• Drop weapon
• Idaho Falls discussion

Thanks,

Erxnmedia (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

We've had quite a bit of discussion here both ways. Could we get some indications of thought; who believes the country articles ought to be merged back into the regional ones, and vice versa? Maybe that will better indicate consensus and show us a clear way ahead. Buckshot06(prof) 23:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For merger into regional

1. By all means spin out the ones that /do/ get too long (But obviously, retain mention etc at regional level, just pointing to the spin off for more detail) but every country? I can't imagine CIA Operations In Lichenstein will be a great read. Or CIA Operations In Monaco. Narson (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Against merger into regional

Merge?

F-4 Terminator 2020 is a very poorly qritten article about a subtype of the F-4. I am of the opinion it would be better merged into the parent F-4 article. Thoughts? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it's really a matter best raised at WP:AIR, I think. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:World War II politics

(Note: I have included the category into the discussion page for easier access during discussion) It is my opinion that this category is a mess. I would like to suggest it be overhauled, and suggest the category be renamed Politics and diplomacy of World War II with the following structure

• Domestic politics of World War II
  • Political attacks during World War II
  • Country political affairs of World War II
  • Local politics of World War II
  • Regional politics of World War II
  • Nationalist politics of World War II
  • Ethnic politics of World War II
  • Communist politics of World War II
  • Liberal politics of World War II
  • Independence political movements of World War II
• Diplomacy of World War II
  • Country diplomacy during World War II
  • Diplomats of World War II
  • Negotiations during World War II
  • Conferences during World War II
  • Agreements during World War II
  • Treaties of World War II
• Governments in exile during World War II
  • Royalty in exile during World War II
• Politics in occupied territories during World War II
  • Collaborationist politics during World War II
  • Resistance politics during World War II
• Short-lived states of World War II
• Political control of Media during World War II

Many articles really belong elsewhere, predominantly in the Home Front category, which is also a mess--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of those categories will have very few articles, leading to a needlessly complicated tree. "Negotiations during World War II"? How many articles about that do we have? Oberiko (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because the articles are lacking does not mean the subject is non-existent. Negotiations were important as precursors for developing diplomatic, economic and military policies and strategies.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If we don't have it then in terms of Wikipedia, it is non-existent. Being a programmer by training, I think in terms of YAGNI, don't build it until a need arises for it. Should, somehow, we get a significant number of "negotiations" or other such articles (that aren't for some reason fully encapsulated in another category), then fine. But pre-empting is just unnecessary confusion for the reader and putting a structure in place that has a good chance of not meeting future requirements. Oberiko (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-aligned states

Another suggestion is that the Category:World War II needs the Category:Non-aligned states of World War II because they do not fit into the Category:World War II national military histories used for the belligerent countries--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of our national histories should be (are?) sorted by faction. Otherwise we'd have considerable difficulty with the France, Italy, Finland and other states which changed allegience during the war. Oberiko (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I shoudl have used Neutral states during World War II--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And what would that provide for us? There are only a handful of countries that were officially neutral during World War II which had any influence, such as Spain and Vichy France. Why do they require a category, especially if we're already not categorizing by Allies and Axis? Oberiko (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that life did not stop in the neutral states while the war was going on. Some had significant impact of certain aspects of the war, like Switzerland and Sweden. However, my point is that they are not categorised as either Axis or Allies, and currently the categories are in the National military histories of World War II, and these countries had a fare greater impact on the diplomatic and economic levels then military. Even those that did get collateral damage like Republic of Ireland sill had histories outside of the military aspect.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, life didn't stop. In fact, most of the neutral nations had more pressing domestic issues and as such World War II is not a significant part of their history and likely don't require a dedicated "during World War II" article. For example, we wouldn't need a "history of Brazil during World War II" when History of Brazil (1930–1945) can quite easily contain all of their World War II involvement.

So, we again come back to the few who had an active enough involvement that they require a "during World War II" article. Even if so, why add the additional category? Don't get me wrong, it's a mess right now; but having a dedicated "national histories" category should be enough. Creating a sub-category for maybe five or so additional countries is just an additional layer that searchers will have to crawl through. Oberiko (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

List of military occupations

There is currently a debate over what should be listed in List of military occupations there is a WP:RM to move the current list from "List of military occupations" to "List of military occupations since 1907" to reflect the constraints imposed in the current article's lead, AFAICT from what he has written so that user:mrg3105 can write a new list with fewer constraints, see Talk:List of military occupations#Requested move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should treat this as a modern term resulting from the development of nationalism. Otherwise every conquest is a military occupation, making the article endless. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all Wandalstouring. There are other words that describe end of occupation such as annexation and incorporation. It is fairly easy to tell when an occupation becomes and annexation thus changing the basic status of the territory, and requiring a link to the List of military annexations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairly easy to tell in one person's opinion, but, everybody's opinions disagree, and the Poles and Russians for example have had long-running arguments over exact statuses. Not suitable for wikipedia before there is a legal convention on the subject. Buckshot06(prof) 20:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Questia subscription

Does anybody have the full subscription to this? It appears that full copyable books are available to subscribers. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight

Spotlight
An article covered by this WikiProject, 30 Years' War, is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC)

...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Military bases

This CFD is a proposal to merge Category:Military bases into Category:Military facilities. I think it would benefit greatly by input from knowledgeable editors. Cgingold (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

List of military ambushes

Some thoughts on this article please , from the title there is scope for a huge "List" but at the moment it only contains the Attack on Pearl Harbor the Battle of Domstadtl and Lochry's Defeat. My own opinion and the article on Ambush states - An ambush is a long established military tactic in which an ambushing force uses concealment to attack an enemy that passes its position. So that would rule out the Attack on Pearl from being included. The article has a banner acknowledging that it is incomplete and asking for expansion but the last update was December 2006 Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the concept is poor. Ambushes are part of military warfare, but what constitutes an "ambush" could be hard to define. It is particularly true because the term is often used as a means of derision. The loosing side will say their side lost because of an ambush, the winning side will describe it as superior tactics---a successful surprise attack.Balloonman (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone think that this is worth keeping? Nick Dowling (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I considered nom'ing it for deletion, but decided to wait since it was brought here for discussion.Balloonman (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is worth keeping. Dreamafter (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not the sort of thing that lends itself to a list without entering into the realm of original research. The ambush article should mention a few notable ambushes, and leave it at that. When you nominate the list for deletion, make a link to this section, so we don't have to register our opinions twice! —Kevin Myers 04:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody already put a prod on it... I think that will take care of the article as it hasn't been edited in 2 years.Balloonman (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That was me. Would someone like to put a {{Prod-2}} on it? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 04:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Wouldn't Radar fall under our designation because it is used heavily in military uses and speaks a lot about the military applictions? Dreamafter (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It should, why it isn;t yet listed is anyone's guess. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add the talk page banner. Dreamafter (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of 'state terrorism' articles

There is currently a centralised discussion of articles which cover 'state terrorism' at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism which may be of interest to members of this project. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Byzantine navy now open

The A-Class review for Byzantine navy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Satyr

Have you replaced User:SatyrTN's User:SatyrBot? We at WP:CHICAGO are looking for a replacement since he is no longer active. Please respond at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

War of the Spanish Succession

Is up for Featured Article Review. Please take a look and see if you are interested in helping it come up to current standards. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of "Military personnel by nation" subcategories

Currently, the subcategories of Category:Military personnel by nation are in the format of "nationality military personnel." This schema implies that all members of the military personnel are of that country's nationality - but this may not be the case. I believe that it would be better to rename all of these subcategories as "Military personnel of nation." The current sub-categories would be better categorized as "Military personnel by nationality," which is not the purpose of the categorization. I wanted to discuss this here first before bringing it to Cfd. --Scott Alter 19:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I found that this has been discussed previously (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 29#Military people categorization), and they came to the same conclusion that I had - to use "Military personnel of Foo". This discussion also included changing "people" to "personnel", which resulted in this Cfd. However, it does not seem as though they ever pursued this further to change the subcategories of Category:Military personnel by nation. --Scott Alter 03:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion would be go ahead and take it to CfD, seems a perfectly reasonable course of action after the decision on the root category. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 04:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In my categorisation concept military personnel is not entirely adequate if one reads how people write the articles. Firstly they are part of military organisations, so that is the parent category. The I did this:

• Military organisations in World War II

Individuals in military service during World War II

Individual senior ranking officers of World War II (General, Flag, or Air Officers rank)

Individual officers of World War II (Field or Senior Officers )

Individual junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)

Individual non-commissioned officers of World War II

Individual enlisted personnel of World War II

Individual volunteers during World War II (non-ranking civilians)

Individual resistance personnel of World War II

Individual civilians in military organisations during World War II (administrative, research, policy, etc.)

Notable animals in military organisations of World War II (mascots, companions, pets, etc.)

If left as Military personnel of Foo, what happens is that the category is used for all sorts of articles that really talk about units, and sometimes fail to state who the person was.

When applying to the individual nationalities, just add the nation into the sub-category, e.g. ::Individual Italian junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)

Individual USN junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)

Individual Free French junior officers of World War II (Company Grade or Junior Officers)

be happy to hear constructive comments--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Its all good and well to call Mrg troll and vandal, but what is the real issue? Are people upset because they were not consulted (ego), or are people upset because I was unable to find suitable categories for articles and decided to do something about it?

No one took any notice of the issues of categorisation for months. I started the discussion last year and it went nowhere. How long does it exactly take to brainstorm into some action? The truth is that no one has taken the whole, or in this case, part project approach, and said, fine, how do we do this. Somewhere in the project there needs to be an article on Leadership. People seem to get very little done by consensus, and in this case the evidence of previous efforts based on consensus have borne poor "fruit". The categories are a mess. The fail to abide by the Wikipedia categorisation guidelines and project's own guidelines. They are highly ambiguous. Expansion operations and planning of the Axis Powers is an excellent example. This has now been placed in the main category World War II. Why?! The article is a List of Axis and Japanese operations! It is unreferenced and lacking any other content then the links to articles. Was it a major part of the Second World War? Its nature is only military, so it is unrelated to either the social, political, diplomatic or economic scope or impact of the Second World War, so why is it in the root World War II category?! Why is it even in existence? There is already a List of World War II military operations and the inclusion of "planned" invasions is pure original research without any references. With all the special task forces being created, what we need FIRST is an article quality control/proofing so what is there being presented to the reader is not offered half-baked from someone's sandbox. You will note that each one of the categories I created uses definitions from existing Wikipedia articles to help the author define where the article fits, and maybe even think about the contents of the article being submitted for reader perusal. Ok, I did not ask for consensus. Does any category I created not satisfy all Wikipedia criteria? In any case, I would urge people to wait until Woody places the master table I sent him in public domain before reverting what I had started.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin Tilley

I have a featured article candidate review open for Benjamin Franklin Tilley, a US Navy rear admiral and military Governor of American Samoa. I know this is linked to off the Review page already, but I wanted to prod a bit. If anyone has any time or interest, I would really appreciate any comments (positive or negative) towards the FAC. Negative comments will help me to improve this article further. JRP (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Radical restructuring of Category:World War II

Discussion on how to restructure Category:World War II has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force/Category restructuring. All project members are invited to help discuss how to restructure this category. Thanks. Woody (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Memorial Day, an article within our scope, is presently linked to from the page. Please keep an eye out on the page lest our vandals get creative with the words and images on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't they just semiprotect frontpage content. This really consumes time without real necessity. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have done that, but I lack the needed tools to protect an article. Sorry, just doing the best I can :/ TomStar81 (Talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection which is only for the TFA but can be used for other pages linked on the mainpage. Woody (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Cold War now open

The peer review for Cold War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! --Eurocopter (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

FAR on Structural history of the Roman military

Structural history of the Roman military is up for review here.--Serviam (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Verdeja (tank) now open

The peer review for Verdeja (tank) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The oldest MILHIST FA

Would it be possible to generate a list of the ten (or so) oldest MILHIST articles? I think it would be interesting for the project to see which of the articles in its care have held the FA star for the longest amount of time. — an unlogged in TomStar81 (talk · contribs)

Weapon and vehicle Marks in dab pages

I started three dab pages to help readers who only know the "mark" number of the item they are looking for: Mark XIV, Mark XV and Mark XVIII. I feel I don't have the depth of knowledge to continue the effort. I am imagining a series of dab pages that cover all possible marks. Care to incorporate this stab at organization into your project? Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't have the knowledge to help much, but I will say that's a remarkably good idea :-)--Serviam (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There will be a certain amount of tussling involved. The Mark I through Mark VII dab pages already exist except that the Mark II page has a radio telescope sitting on it. We'll have to bump it! The Mark VIII and Mark IX pages are about tank models... easy enough to fold into the overall concept. Mark X is a singer songwriter. :/ Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The WP:WikiProject Disambiguation is also now involved in this effort. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reguested articles list

For those not aware of it, there is a list of requested articles outside of the task forces in the Project.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)