Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force)
- Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Requests for project input
[edit]Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Suharto has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:June 2025 Los Angeles protests#Requested move 1 July 2025
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:June 2025 Los Angeles protests#Requested move 1 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 13:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict#Requested move 3 July 2025
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict#Requested move 3 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 07:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Need your two cents on a topic I opened on the talk page for Japanese war crimes
[edit]Hi. I'm new to this page and am trying to make an edit on the page of Japanese war crimes without causing a scuffle with another editor on the site. Seems that there's a book titled Japans Holocaust by Bryan Mark Riggs that is commonly being referenced in the page surrounding Japans war aggression over and it's death toll in terms of government policy in addition with total dead. I wanted to direct some attention to some of the uncertainties I have over how often this book is referenced and if it should be primarily referenced as so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japanese_war_crimes#Is_Japans_Holocaust_by_Mark_Bryan_Riggs_really_worth_being_titlized_in_the_introduction_paragraphs_for_this_page?
I do need to apologize if i'm editing this discussion wrong since i'm new to this page, the WikiProject Military History and i'm not what I would call an expert editor. I caught word of this page from an Admin named Dianna. Her page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa#c-Diannaa-20250712194300-Undeadmerc3-20250712193800 Undeadmerc3 (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Citing a book in the lead does not make it a "primary reference." You seem to object to Riggs using an alternate title "Japanese Holocaust" and having that cited in the lead. Since this phrase is in historical use, there seems to be little if any reason not to mention it as alternate titles are often given at the opening of articles. Although I think others, perhaps even me, might mention it in an appropriate place later in the article, rather than in the lead, I think it is proper in the lead. I also think this is too insignificant to be a matter of dispute, especially when the dispute is centered on the value of Riggs as a source, not because it is used by writers or historians as an alternate description.
- Perhaps I am interpreting your comments too broadly, but it appears to me that you seem to be on a quest to downgrade Riggs as a source. Citation to Good Reads and Amazon criticisms are of no support. They are personal opinions by ordinary readers and the percentage of overall numbers of readers who give it five stars is of no value whatsoever. They may simply mean that some readers consider it dense reading. Citations that you give about Riggs himself and his book are are not scholarly, and more importantly say nothing at all about his book on Japanese war crimes casualties.
- Apparently your point of view is that only lower estimates of casualties should be used, despite the fact that other well respected historians such as Felton and Frank support rather high estimates of casualties. In fact, you even note that a range is needed in some earlier critical comments that you made concerning the article. So it is somewhat puzzling that, despite this and comments by others about the value of Felton and Frank estimates, you now seem to be in favor of removing higher estimates or criticizing them. I think the neutral point of view is already apparent due to the range of estimates and citations and the phrasing of the article.
- I note again that the discussion of civilian casualties and war crime casualties in the article itself has a range of estimates. My reading is that use of different time periods for the war and numbers of war crime casualties in various countries, stated both individually and collectively, perhaps could cause a little confusion. However, I don't think a careful reading supports this possibility. Noting this construction of the article, I suggest you give up trying to downgrade or eliminate the Riggs citations as well as any effort to reduce the number of casualties caused by Japanese war crimes in World War II. A range of views and citations are already given in the article. I see no undue reliance or over-reliance on Riggs.
- You could take this to another type of dispute resolution. The alternatives are noted at the dispute resolution noticeboard Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. I suggest, however, you not waste your time, and others time, because I think you will get the same type of response. Assuming you have not done so already, I suggest you read the various introductory articles cited at Help:Introduction, Help:Getting started and Help:Contents for further information on contributing to and editing Wikipedia.
- I will not move this to archives and I suspect others will leave this here for at least a short period of time in case someone else wants to disagree with or add to my comments. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry for the misunderstanding. I merely was trying to type up a series of question of uncertainty here. I wasn't advocating for Riggs estimate to be removed or anything. I myself acknowledge Japans body count to be higher than Germany's however there are a series of uncertainties I have about Riggs estimates. Once again i'm not advocating for his estimates to be removed. I do however think that while to term holocaust is fine despite the nature of the atrocities being worse and different than the Germans I do seem to be unsure about whether or not A:Riggs took measurements of other Asian dictatorships and B:Riggs estimate represents two dead vs government policy. There's more to my concerns here, but I don't want to discount your claims here. I do think you misinterpret my concerns by saying that "Lower estimates should be used." I merely am asking if Riggs measured other dictatorships in order to properly measure Japans body count since Japans body count wasn't heavily researched until after Mao died in 1976 with Japan not facing pressure over it's wrongdoing till the 1980's. There's alot I discuss in what I wrote, but this citation comes to mind regarding the timing of when Japans wrongdoing finally started being researched mainly because Mao wanted to build political movements in Japan in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. The Anpo protests were the result of that.
- https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/10/china-japan-world-war-ii-tokyo-trial/675660/
- Once again sorry about any misunderstandings here. Undeadmerc3 (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- I do need to apologize for double posting, but I assume editing comments is frown upon with the administrators. It's a misconception that I myself actually favor lower estimates to the point of downsizing higher estimates. In fact I ended up removing an edit that included RJ Rummels estimate which in retrospective is too low to cite as a reference.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_war_crimes&diff=prev&oldid=1271838016
- To get a taste of what i'm referring to, there's a very insightful page on the death toll of the Nanking Massacre which has been cited as one of the Good Warefare Articles and is on the GA scale of Wikipedia Content Assessment Scale, while the Japanese war crimes page is listed as B on the Wikipedia Content Assessment Scale. Now a B isn't bad per say, and i'm not really in denial of the concept of the death toll by government policy being 30 million or more that Mark Felton and Bryan Mark Riggs support, however I do want context to be known here that there are some questions here. Like Japan which denies it's own history on it's role during and before the Second World War, China has it's own issues with history regarding Mao Zedong's body count, the latter of which is illegal to research in China. It feeds the beast between the two countries as both sides capitalize off one anthers negationism with Japans body count being used to inflate Mao's body count by Japanese War Crime denialists and Mao's body count being used to inflate Japans body count by denialists of Mao Zedong's regime. I say this taking into context that Japans aggression is one reason why Mao came to power, but that's besides the point.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll_of_the_Nanjing_Massacre
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/Warfare Undeadmerc3 (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- No problems, really. I am capable of misunderstanding questions or comments. I rarely archive threads that I participate in quickly because I think there is always a chance that I have misunderstood something and that the original poster or someone else will point it out. A further explanation or viewpoint could change my original views.
- Don't be shy about multiple postings. Assuming no initial agreement or understanding, I think that civil conversations lead to better outcomes than one and done. I can't speak for all administrators (or any for that matter) but I think most, if not all, will not mind clarifications and explanations. Multiple postings of the same points with no added information or clarifications are likely to aggravate almost anyone eventually, not just administrators.
- I mentioned, and it is worth wondering, whether Riggs, and probably others, have confused the issue by using different time periods for the body count and for the analysis. Also, I don't discount the likelihood that Mao would try to inflate the count for his own purposes, including trying to minimize his own atrocities. In fact, I think he was not a reliable source for anything he said. It was worth mentioning, at least.
- Good article assessments are not necessarily much above B class assessments. One independent assessor makes a GA determination. They are being reassessed these days with some regularity. I have seen a few that I thought did not deserve the GA assessment but given the number being put up for reassessment these days, I would not nominate any at this time. Probably, I would bring it up to one of the regular nominators who are also administrators to see if they agreed to nominate a GA article for reassessment. I am working on edits to keep two GA assessments at this time.
- Stating concerns and questions on the talk page is proper and can lead to better understanding and better articles. Often, a consensus can be reached there and does not need to be taken to any of the dispute resolution processes.
- Thanks for your diligence in trying to improve the article and bringing some concerns to light. While the text of the article itself might be sufficient, a carefully constructed footnote might be ok. That being said, I am not necessarily recommending that or am I likely to go back to the article to give further comments.
Donner60 (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)- Thank you. As for Mao inflating the body count it's worth mentioning that Mao actually had no intention of pressurizing Japan over it's wrongdoing since Mao wanted to build soft power and political movement in Japan based on his ideology of Maoism. The civil unrest in Japan is a testament to that, however this is one of many reasons why Japan never properly apologized over World War 2. The country never faced external pressure untill the 1980's. The 1970's is when Japans wrongdoing was heavily researched in China thanks to Deng Zhao Ping who had a grudge over Japans role during and before the second world 2 since Deng Zhao Ping grew up in an area occupied by the Japanese military. The article by the Atlantic I posted in the two previous comments(Why China Changed it's Mind about World War 2) should give insight on this.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anpo_protests
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzRWPGSaKDk&t=1s
- One criticism I have towards Riggs that he said in an interview is that he claims Japans refusal to apologize is due to "culture of ignorance" even though it wasn't till decades after the war ended when Japan finally faced pressure over this. There's another good article on this right here that i'd recommend. It's a shame that so many missed opportunities was gone to waste.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxhrX20i62s
- Mark Felton rightfully mentioned that Douglass McArther played a major role in sabotaging the International Tribunal of the Far East in preperation for the cold war which arguably played a more serious role in Japans refusal to apologize than Mao's ambitions to build his ideological foundations in Japan. Despite that I sumbscribe to his channel he has yet to mention Mao himself possibly due to him having a Japan as a teacher in China(his Amazon book account mentions this). Nothing against him since he generally is a good source of information, but it does stand to reason he would risk his job should he bring Mao up.
- https://nation.time.com/2012/12/11/why-japan-is-still-not-sorry-enough/ Undeadmerc3 (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- No problems, really. I am capable of misunderstanding questions or comments. I rarely archive threads that I participate in quickly because I think there is always a chance that I have misunderstood something and that the original poster or someone else will point it out. A further explanation or viewpoint could change my original views.
I have created Against All Currents, a memorial for slain journalist Peter R. de Vries. I think he should fall under this project and his bio may be in need of a military infobox.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I do not agree that Peter R. de Vries belongs within the scope of this project. Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover? b3 Note 3 which reads "Military service does not in and of itself place an individual within the scope of the project—particularly in the case of service in modern militaries. To qualify them, an individual's military service must have been somehow noteworthy or have contributed—directly or indirectly—to their notability." The only mention of de Vries' military service in the articles is that he served for two years as a sergeant. I will not archive this reply for several days, although, of course, someone else might do so. I try to always be open to the possibility that someone will show that I have made a misinterpretation or mistake. However, in this case I doubt that any other current or former coordinator will disagree or suggest that my conclusion should be changed or over-ruled. Good work by you, as always.Donner60 (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not a coordinator, but I tend to agree with this assessment. The article says he was conscripted in the late 1970s, and during his two years of service reached the rank of sergeant (probably late in his term). There's no indication he did anything other than serve his single term and then got on with his life. Intothatdarkness 11:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Regarding special forces templates
[edit]I previously made Template:Chinese Special Operations Forces and have seen many similar templates before, but I would like to ask whether police tactical units should be included. I see this being done on similar articles about Pakistan, Iran, Japan and Thailand.
My personal opinion is that if the police they are part of are considered "military", such as for iran, it is okay to keep them; When I made the chinese template I avoided SWAT of the People's Police(Which by the way, a draft is being made about it) and stuck with the People's Armed Police(since they are one of china's 3 armed forces per article 22 of this law, the other two being the PLA and militia, and are treated as active service members).
Could I hear your opinion on this? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know that I'm comfortable with some of these, especially the one for Japan. If there's military involvement in the chain of command (such as Iran) that's one thing, but I see no indication of this with Japan. To get back to your question, I think it's ok in the instance of the People's Armed Police for the reasons you give. Intothatdarkness 12:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Unreferenced articles
[edit]WikiProject Medicine has reached a milestone of zero unreferenced articles. I checked our list, and we have 37 unreferenced articles in our project. Can we sort through these and either find references or delete them? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of the difference but [1] lists 1,150 articles as "Cites no sources". I checked a few and they all seemed to be tagged with template:unreferenced. If it is the larger number seems like a good target to eliminate in a drive? - Dumelow (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's a big difference! A drive might be fun. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's been a while since we had a drive. Let's do it. I smell barnstars.
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Strangely, the link from the Wikiproject:Unreferenced articles page only gives the list of 37 articles that Hawkeye7 cites. However, the link that Dumelow cites, which appears consistent with a category list of unreferenced articles, gives the larger number. There are a few articles on that larger list that are assessed B and at least one is a GA. I saw two or three of those B/GA articles which had unreferenced templates but did have some citations. There are some C assessments that lack citations on the list as well but the great majority of the articles are stub or start class. So the longer list appears to have close to the number of unreferenced military history articles despite a few erroneous templates. As we know, the category on the project talk page with articles only needing attention to referencing includes both articles with no citations and articles with insufficient citations. So it is much longer. The next Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives is scheduled for November. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's been a while since we had a drive. Let's do it. I smell barnstars.
- That's a big difference! A drive might be fun. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've referenced a couple of articles here over the weekend, and enjoyed it, and would be very happy to join a drive on this. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Any idea why the 37 articles includes 1966 Neftyanik Baku season? This seems to have no military content and doesn't seem to be tagged to MILHIST. Monstrelet (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Obvious mistake. I see no option to edit. I may be missing something but it appears that only members of that Wikiproject can edit the list. Donner60 (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Any idea why the 37 articles includes 1966 Neftyanik Baku season? This seems to have no military content and doesn't seem to be tagged to MILHIST. Monstrelet (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)