[edit]
Found this while patrolling. I can't find references to an "Anglo-Turkish War" using basic google searches, which seems odd given the scale of this article and the large countries involved? I am also wary that this might be a WP:FORKofTurkish War of Independence, which is an article with neutrality issues. Therefore I bring it here for your consideration. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After checking some recent edits and going through article histories, I noticed frequent, anonymous edits (mostly geolocated to Bắc Giang, Vietnam) that have added near-identical material to several related articles.
IPs used:
These edits have some common characteristics: they cite speculative or unreliable sources, falsify a cited source, inject discussion of logistics and cost-effectiveness into a discussion about vulnerability to ammunition cook-off, or make claims about Western tank designs that are either unsourced or close to tautologically obvious. The net effect on the article is also similar: the relative vulnerability of Soviet/Russian tanks to catastrophic ammunition explosions, as compared to Western tanks, is minimized or justified in terms of design trade-offs; the effectiveness of the 9M133 Kornet anti-tank missile and other Soviet/Russian weapons is emphasized. (Another trait of the editor(s) in question is edits to Recognition of same-sex unions in Vietnam and articles on battles involving Soviet forces in World War II.) To be clear, I think an analysis of tank design choices would be good to have on this encyclopedia, but it would need to be properly sourced and appropriately placed, instead of being spammed across multiple articles. As far as I can tell, members of this project, including me, have either reverted or pared down these edits wherever we have found them. Who else has encountered this, and has anyone tried to reach out to the editor(s) involved, to discuss how their contributions could be improved? Huntthetroll (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started the article Harrison S. Kerrick. The main source is a New York Times obituary, which I can't access. Could someone with a New York Times subscription go in and expand the article with the information I am missing from the obituary? Or at least link me a copy of the article to expand myself? Roasted (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some research on this obscure incident and decided to write an article about it, any comments and opinions welcome. Link: Deception Island incident Bob meade (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:MILHIST coordinators: @Fyrfly357: I have moved this from the co-ordinator talk page and changed the title from: change to 96th Infantry page? in order to give it move coverage. At first reading, I think some change is needed in these articles. Also, perhaps we might need to investigate other instances of this sort of thing in other articles connected to the blocked user. Donner60 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the board of the 96th Infantry Division Heritage Association and need some guidance regarding a modification of the Wiki history of the 96th Infantry Division (United States).
Our group is composed mainly of descendants and friends of members of the WWII 96th ID (US) dedicated to the preservation of the history of the 96th. We have been collecting information from the Army archives in St. Louis, MO. We also have contact with the Ft Douglas Museum in Salt Lake City, UT which is storing some of our material as well as records of the 96th successor reserve units. Our intention is to expand on the history of the 96th ID and also add to the information of the after war reserve units. While the reserves were not combat units, they did serve in several post-war conflicts.
In June of 2008 the original 96th ID Wiki page was renamed to 96th Sustainment Brigade, without discussion, by a “Dcfowler1” with the 96th ID page now being a redirect. We were not the only group affected and it seems his actions resulted in a temporary suspension of editing privileges.
Since the 96th ID was the parent organization we would like to know if it would be possible to reverse this and return to the original configuration retaining the 96th SB page as a redirect. The majority of the article pertains to the WWII organization so we feel that this is not an unreasonable request. Alternatively, would it be possible to split the existing article and have separate pages for the 96th ID and 96th SB.
Is this something that falls in line with the goals of the WP:MilHist project? Since the 96th ID page already exists, it is my understanding that any changes of this sort would require the assistance of an administrator. We do not wish to cause any problems or disruption so any suggestions, advise, or guidance you could give would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Fyrfly357 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donner60 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson#Requested move 18 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does any user have access to the most up to date Military Balance? List of active Russian military aircraft would benefit from more up to date sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. I have (@Bungy1804:) a user who seems to be a person with great knowledge about UK nuclear submarines but does not know how to incorporate their information into the article. Their attempts have been wild and without sources and very much in the vein of vandalism which is why I reverted them on half a dozen pages surrounding the subject of the Churchill-class submarines. I have attempted to explain to them on their talk page how to go about doing this, but they seem to be ignoring me. Maybe someone with greater knowledge of the period/nuclear programs (they keep referencing the Mountbatten program) could speak with them. Llammakey (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL
I am the chairman of HMS Valiant and of the 3rd Submarine Squardron for a reason.
Chairman of an imaginary group with imaginary friends? Doesn't the Chairman of the Squardron need to be able to spell. LOL MAXIMA. ——Serial Number 54129 15:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Libyan Crisis (2011–present)#Requested move 16 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JDiala (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the 20th-century subsection of this article is attributed to Modern Guns and Gunnery by H.A. Bethell, a pre-WWI book that you can read here. After skimming it, I found some significant inaccuracies in what the article claims about early 20-century usage of the term "howitzer". Feel free to double-check and chime in. Huntthetroll (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello American Civil War friends! Just wanted to let you know that the Walter Johnson's River of Dark Dreams has prompted an interest in the pre-Civil War landscape of the lower Mississippi. Wanted to flag some recently developed articles on minor boat landings (all now washed away by the River) that could use your expertise on ACW military movements; additional categories, see also, links, and content very welcome!
Thanks in advance for any further development! Best, jengod (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]