This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military history article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
"Without even looking at the content" - Seriously? Well, that's your problem right there.
Rjensen has stated in his edit summary that he "checked each one and each one deals with military history in appropriate fashion". So it would seem this issue is moot.
But he also asked; "is there a specific one for which there is a specific complaint?" - which you can't answer because you haven't even bothered to examine the content yourself.
Seriously. Yes, it's a problem, but not in the way you present it. These are blatant problems, so why look further? The blatant problems are still there. If there's some special case where an exception to policy is warranted, then someone needs to make it clear why. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Wiki should be responsive to helping our readers find resources that meet their needs. In history I think the majority of major articles have useful links--I note that Ronz erased all of them and did not suggest a single new one. Let's be familiar with the activities of people involved in military history--they join, talk, read, collaborate and visit sites and museums. Their needs are what this very short list caters to. #1 covers the world and 2 covers China in much greater bibliographical detail. They are obviously not redundant. #4 is the single most useful site for military history--over 1000 military historians subscribe and it posts every week news on new items and meetings as well as reviews. I've subscribed for two decades. Many military historians use military museums and many are employed in one; #11 is an excellent representative. #8 is a scholarly society and #9 is a scholarly journal--both are important for military history work. Rjensen (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for responding. I brought up WP:NOT and WP:EL with my first removal of the information. As far as I can tell, they are being ignored completely. We can't create consensus in this manner. The problems I've identified are blatant ELNO issues. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
I already quoted wp:EL and will repeat it: What can normally be linked ....Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject.... That fits these websites very well in my opinion. WP:EL goes on: Links normally to be avoided lists 19 categories, NONE of which fit any of these links in my opinion. Ronz does not tell us how any of the links here fit any of the 19 no-nos. Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you.
From the lede of EL, The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.
The bottom line is that such articles such broad topics generally don't have much in the way of an External links section beyond a link to a directory site.
With such a broad topic, ELNO#1 and #13 problems are common, and that's what we have here. The links should be to unique resources: the redundant pairs I point out are not. The links should be to sites about Military history in general, and we agree that some of the links do not. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have specified the value of each site you attacked. You state that ELNO criteria and 13 are suspected. No details given. avoid#1 does not fit (the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article nothing is "merely repeated."-- for example several sites have scholarly articles and book reviews. avoid#13 (Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject:) As I have just explained, they are all directly related to the topic. Try #4 H-WAR and explain how it is disqualified--it has commissioned and posted 46,000 book reviews in military history. Rjensen (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm concerned that we're simply not communicating, while ELBURDEN is being ignored. I appreciate the focus on just #4, but I hope you won't be offended if I delay responding in the hope that time will help the situation.
Focusing on the end goal: In my experience, we should aim for one or two directories or sites with very good directories. That's all. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
our end goal is to help readers and I suggest "Less is more" is not helpful. Ronz makes the strange claim that The bottom line is that such articles such broad topics generally don't have much in the way of an External links section That is false claim made without looking. I took a look at the numbers :
The argument that it's a broad topic and so it shouldn't have any/many links seems backwards. To me, that justifies a broader selection of links, and I believe this list is well within reason. Even if it were true that other broad topic articles don't have many ELs (which does not appear so), OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As to the specifics, all the links seem relevant, and I'll trust the opinion of the comments above that they are reasonable sources – it's not really my field, but they look useful. 1 and 2 concern me, as they appear to be paywalled and not content (only bibs). 9 seems to be a more specific link within 8, so 8 could probably go (applying parallel reasoning for not wikilinking like Danville, Illinois). —[AlanM1(talk)]—22:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
seems backwards It justifies a broad selection of links (and categorizes) to other articles in Wikipedia. Those articles are going to have external links specific to their topics. There's no lack of external links if we're covering a topic, it's sub-topics, and related topics well.
To avoid ELNO#1 problems, the link needs to be to a site that has information that still meets ELYES#3 criteria (relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article...), but not already in the article and it cannot be added to the article.
The broader a topic, the more likely that it's main aspects will be well covered by Wikipedia and what few select external links we choose, especially if we find an external link to a good directory. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
No that has a very narrow perspective -- it is a list of battles. And it is not nearly as good as one you erased, ["Military History Encyclopedia on the Web"] Battles have a minor role here--please read the article!--it is about how historians in the last 2000+ years from Greeks to 21st century have developed ways to study many military topics. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Re"Less is more" is not helpful. I never said that. It's a strawman, and misrepresents my position while ignoring policy. It's not "less is more", it's follow NOT and EL, focus on our readers rather than the researchers that are here, focus on creating a better encyclopedia and better coverage of the topics within this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Re ref#4: I'm sure it's a useful resource for finding the latest thought and commentary in the research community, but that's not our focus nor audience. I wonder if some editors might consider it ELNO#10. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
While we're still mired in addressing blatant NOT/EL problems, I looked through the contents of them all. It's worse that I expected, including a COI violation that should have been disclosed.
I didn't search each site to see what external resources they list and how they organize them. I'm hoping I overlooked a some good resource lists and directories.
I'm unclear why historyofwar.org was mentioned as a good directory of external resources, nor why the authors of the site should be considered experts.
In general, I was disappointed with the authorship.
Ironically, americanhistoryprojects.com appears to be a useful directory. I expect we can get others to agree so the COI can be put to rest. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
"Less is More" is a pattern of behavior, not a verbal statement. It applies to situations when an editor always removes information and never adds any new information. In this case its a matter of removing all the information provided. that appears to me to violate the basic principle of Wikipedia which is the encouragement to add new material of value and interest to the topic at hand. people research military history are certainly invited to join in use Wikipedia – in fact its official policy that we have a military history project with over 1000 people subscribed. Ronz should subscribe to find out what's going on in the field of military history on Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, Wikipedia's Military History Project is not harassment -- it's helpful according to the members listed at [[1]] . Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history explicitly includes as a common goal: #8 Military historiography, publications, and historians. Supporting that mission is a major role for the External Links section.Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ronz: (The Military History Project) "Sounds like harassment intended to disrupt normal consensus-making then." - Uh, what? Can you clarify that? (Orretractit). Otherwise is appears you've just smeared an entire group of editors. And a large group at that. - wolf17:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
To clarify: The comment directed at me[2] "Sounds like harassment intended to disrupt normal consensus-making then." I hope that clears all this up. --Ronz (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: "Harassment" is what happens when one editor rides one or more editor's ass over something stupid. No one's done that yet. Now if we can return to the matter at hand, lets work through this.
In summary, here's whats happened:
Ronz (talk·contribs) has unilaterally removed the external links section without obtaining any kind of consensus for the move, and without providing any reason for the deletion.
Objections have been raised over the deletion, for which the deleting editor has cited parts of WP:NOT and WP:EL in his defense.
Ronz (talk·contribs) has level accusations of harassment at a Wikipedia Wikiproject (in this case WikiProject military History)
Rjensen (talk·contribs) has opened a thread at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents here concerning the removal of the external links without any attempt to gain consensus.
Opening the ANI thread was a bad maneuver, at the moment all this is is a content dispute and therefore should remain here until something egregious occurs to promote it to admin intervention levels. Because there was no consensus to remove the external links, they should remain in the article for the duration of this discussion. Now to put us back on track, we are here to answer two questions:
To what extent should WP:NOT and WP:EL be applied to the external links section, and
Is there consensus among the contributors here to remove or restore the external link section.
In this talk page Ronz said that "such broad topics generally don't have much in the way of an External links section" . I tried to rebut that claim with a list of 18 relevant history pages with similar EL. He then began erasing the EL sections of these new pages--(egHistory of the United States Navy, History of medicine, Social history etc) --with no talk page activity. Those multiple erasures were "egregious" in my opinion and not a "content dispute". They violated WP:POINTY so I protested that new action to ANI. From the start I argue that WP:EL gives specific permission --it states: This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. Rjensen (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@TomStar81:, thanks for jumping in. You really should provide diffs. I've numbered your points. #1 is called WP:BOLD. without providing any reason simply isn't true. Please withdraw #3. I can see how it my comment could be misinterpreted to believe it was directed at the Project, but it was not the case and I've clarified. --Ronz (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is listed here factually, not judgmentally, so don't worry about it; you've clarified the position and that is ultimately all that matters. And you're right, I should have provided diffs. That's m'bad. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Move to bibliography with proper citation...because Wikipedia, like all other encyclopedias, provide overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. Its one of basic purposes about this endeavor called Wikipedia. Don't obstruct education and research because of the nature of the information. --Moxy (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ronz, that’s not the way I read ELNO#1: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. A site that is a “home for further research” is exactly the opposite of this, in my opinion, as the whole point of such a home would be to either provide, or direct readers to, information not in the article. If this site were simply a listing of sources used in the article, I would agree, but the bibliography appears to be much more comprehensive than that. I agree with Moxy, though, that this has a better home in the bibliography section, rather than external links. CThomas3 (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Exclude Shouldn't be included if other Brill.nl links are included. Shouldn't be included because it focuses on Chinese military history rather than military history in general. --Ronz (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Disagree. Chinese military history is an important new branch and the Chinese are pouring resources in. This is perhaps the single most useful guide to substantive articles (rather than bibliography). There is almost no overlap with #1,Rjensen (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Brill.nl is a repository for multiple books and journals, like JStor.org. There's nothing duplicative in multiple links to the site unless they are to the same subject in the same journal. However, unless I'm missing something, both links are to paywalled documents, which does not seem desirable, right? —[AlanM1(talk)]—18:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Include. the discussion part is only one part--it does not violate rule 10 which is about general omnibus sources with millions of users --it specifies Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn). This is pitched to people who teach and do research in military history and has major resources like thousands of book reviews it commissioned. Rjensen (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
That’s just the first line of ELNO#10. It further talks about chat/discussion forums, Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists, etc. I interpreted this to be a discussion forum. And while it may be pitched at professors of history, it appears that anyone can sign up for an account and participate. There is nothing about numbers of users in the guideline. CThomas3 (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
ELNO#10 attacks open social media sites and specifies them (Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Yahoo! Groups, Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists.) Let's not read it so broadly that it includes & bans all talk pages on Wikipedia, including this one! The actual EL rule in a nutshell is External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article --yes this one is meritable and yes it is directly relevant. The El rule page also states: it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Note the advice " Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense." (which is stated at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelinesRjensen (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Include. "...H-Net resides at the History Department, Michigan State University."[3] "H-War is for scholars, librarians, and teachers in the field of military history and is part of the H-Net family of moderated networks. ... H-War is maintained by an editorial board of international scholars in the field. Subscription to H-War is free and open to professional researchers and instructors in military history or allied fields and to other participants concerned with serious scholarship in the field."[4] etc. This is not ELNO#10. —[AlanM1(talk)]—19:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
I can get behind this argument. As I said before, I find the information there to be very good and planned to subscribe to it regardless of the outcome of this. Striking my above; I'm okay to include. CThomas3 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Keep. ELNO#11 rejects open blogs where people post whatever they want. Not here--this is a professionally edited site done in cooperation with history museums, historical societies and media outlets and now has 1800 pages of rich content. Only its editors can post material (they collaborate with invited specialists). It has by far the best visuals on military history available anywhere--vastly better than those on wikipedia (because it gets permission from museums to use copyright visuals and that's not allowed on Wikipedia).Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Comment Characterizes itself as a "A webzine of community submitted articles", but I cannot find any information about who this community is, or what oversight is involved, if any. That makes me wonder if ELNO#10 or 11 apply. --Ronz (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Keep. does not violate rule 10 which is about nonspecific sites with millions of users -- like Facebook. This is a moderated forum for discussion of major topics in military history pitched to the general reader of military history--nothing else like it anywhere. Rjensen (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Exclude - This is just a set of timelines with the quality level of a grade-school essay, and there's no reason to link to a site that's less detailed than Wikipedia's coverage of the same topics. The owner, Family Media LLC, shows no sign of reliability whatsoever. –dlthewave☎04:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Include. Timelines are a very popular feature for Wikipedia readers and these are much more detailed re military history than these in Wikipedia. The reading level is senior high school, by the way. [for example: Yeosu-Suncheon Rebellion October 1948 A rebellion breaks out among left-leaning South Korean soldiers who disagreed with how the Jeju Uprising was handled. The US decides to stay in South Korea because of the unrest and an ill-prepared South Korean military.] Rjensen (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Exclude Duplicate of "Journal of Military History". Although it appears to be a reputable organization, the website doesn't contain useful content for readers. –dlthewave☎05:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Keep --This is the #1 journal in English & site provides direct link to table of contents. The articles are not online anywhere else so this is the best access point. Rjensen (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Similar to my comment above, it may be worthwhile to include a link in "See also" as List of military history journals. This list article can provide links to individual Wiki pages of military history journals. That way, no specific society or journal is privileged by having an external link from this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Include, unless there's a more comprehensive directory to use instead. I assume the COI issues will not a problem with its inclusion. If we include this directory, then anything in the directory should not be linked directly from the External links section. I'll identify them all if no one does before I get to it. --Ronz (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
yes --it has hundreds of entries. The suggestion that NONE ("anything") of these entries should ever be listed on this EL is crazy. If sites ABC is really good then Wiki should let people know that right off. The "less is better" philosophy is unwise when trying to help readers. Really good sites will get listed on multiple directories--that is good not evil. Rjensen (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Include Quite a number of the links proposed are already listed in this directory, so even if they are removed from the article, they are still almost as accessible to the reader (one extra click). So I don't think we're losing much if some of these links are excluded the article itself. CThomas3 (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
I disagree about "one extra click" If site ABC is listed in our EL list then it's very easy to see and decide to reach. If it is erased then what?? Even if ABC is buried deep in a directory that is still listed--then the readers are lost. They do not know ABC is useful they do not know its name ABC, and they will have to scan hundreds of entries to possibly find it--what a waste of time. No one benefits. Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Do you not curate this directory yourself? If so, you have the creative license to give readers all the information they need to determine whether or not the link is valuable. You can provide far more detail than we could possibly here in Wikipedia with a short descriptive phrase. CThomas3 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
yes that's a good point. But in recent years I think my best skill is in finding sources (esp books & articles that can be cited and perhaps linked to extracts or complete text) that wiki users can use --ranging from beginning-level to advanced cites. My plan is to add them to specific Wiki articles--so that a reader interested in the war of 1812 (say) will be much more likely to find the cites by simply looking at the 1812 article rather than by browsing a directory that covers the world. The other problem is that world military history is too big for anyone. By focusing on one narrow topic at aa time I can be more confident that I am being useful. It also much easier for me to use very powerful resources like google scholar when the topic produces 100 cites, ranked by how often cited by scholars, rather than many thousands of possibles. The books & articles most often footnoted in recent published scholarship is a great guide to useful RS. Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
we have LOTS of Canadian readers --the country is a very strong supporter of military history programs. (I've been invited to talk at five different ones.) Of course, wars are fought by nations--there are very few "world wars". Rjensen (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
We do have a lot of Canadian readers, and we have an article specifically about military history in Canada (Military history of Canada). ELNO#13 is pretty specific about this: Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject.. Otherwise, why stop at just Canada and China? Why not the United States, Great Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Germany, Italy, etc.? There are war museums all over the world, why link this particular one and not others? CThomas3 (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I just got through examining this page for a school assignment, and I must say that everyone involved with this did a great job! There are a wealth of sources, the links lead to reputable sources, and images are properly captioned. I also did not locate any grammatical errors. Overall, nice job!ReedP12 (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello everyone. We need to organize better this article, because you have two sections compromising the history of war: "Technological Evolution" and "Periods of Military war" MUST be joined together because the article has messed up 2806:102E:B:BC5E:59CB:2CCB:F036:A5F4 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
