User talk:EyeTruth/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Barbarossa
You made an excellent point in your created section on the talk page. I have somewhat merged your comments with a current edit conflict about the length and content of the Background section in yet another section. Please join in with some thoughts. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Latest edits to Barbarossa
Battle for Russia, 1996 actually does support this claim, "Though the Stavka was alarmed by reports about German troops approaching the border and had, at 00:30 am, warned the border troops that war was imminent, only a small number of units were alerted in time", so not sure why you added a cn tag to the sentence. Anyways, I've removed the tag and added back Russia 1996. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, ok. I've watched the documentary more than a few times over the years, and I don't remember anywhere it says that. I also checked very quickly and couldn't find any part of it that explicitly supports that statement. Are you really sure the documentary says it? Do keep in mind that the statement is likely true, as I'm sure I've come across it more than once in other sources, but it's important to correctly attribute information to the right source, else the information will essentially be unverifiable. EyeTruth (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I've also watched it quite a few times and I have eidetic memory, and I remember the exact sentence of the documentary. Anyways, I will watch it once more and find it for ya. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please verify it, thanks. Because it may just be that I missed it when I was skimming through the documentary before the edit. The edit was supposed to be just the first among many for the in-text citations to that documentary. Some weeks ago, I ran into one statement in the article that gave a very precise number of Soviet tanks, which I knew was highly likely not in the documentary (and later confirmed that it wasn't). Back then, I just replaced the information with a historian's estimate. And since then I marked the documentary, among other sources that I can get access to, for further verification of the information attributed to them. Since you're also conversant with the documentary, I think it'll be beneficial to discuss any future inconsistencies I come across before I take any action. I'll keep you updated. EyeTruth (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot to verify it today! In the process of starting up my own window cleaning business and is therefore terribly busy these days, but I have a short day tomorrow, so will be sure to find the exact minute number for you so you can verify it yourself personally. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please verify it, thanks. Because it may just be that I missed it when I was skimming through the documentary before the edit. The edit was supposed to be just the first among many for the in-text citations to that documentary. Some weeks ago, I ran into one statement in the article that gave a very precise number of Soviet tanks, which I knew was highly likely not in the documentary (and later confirmed that it wasn't). Back then, I just replaced the information with a historian's estimate. And since then I marked the documentary, among other sources that I can get access to, for further verification of the information attributed to them. Since you're also conversant with the documentary, I think it'll be beneficial to discuss any future inconsistencies I come across before I take any action. I'll keep you updated. EyeTruth (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I've also watched it quite a few times and I have eidetic memory, and I remember the exact sentence of the documentary. Anyways, I will watch it once more and find it for ya. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Take your time buddy. I've been scarce on here lately too, so don't rush. EyeTruth (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Finally got down to it. Open the documentary on YouTube or your own computer and fast-forward to 01:09:47. :) Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the effort. That was exactly the part I checked earlier, since it was the most logical location for that information in the narration. It doesn't say anything about Stavka receiving reports, nor anything about 12:30 AM, nor anything about warning of imminent invasion. It only simply says that conflicting/confusing orders were given and that many units were not alerted. The information attributed to the source, although mostly correct, belies the actual information in the source. EyeTruth (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but notice it also says, "In a wilderness of confusion, orders were given and then countermanded. Many units received no orders at all". The last sentence supports the claim that not all units were alerted. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and I already mentioned that above. But the information attributed to the source still belies the actual information in the source; also already clarified above. The inconsistency needs a fix. Either the passage is rewritten to reflect what its cited source actually says, or other sources that correctly verify the information in the passage are cited. For the later, the best way to get the community's attention to it is to add a {{cn}} tag. That tag does not inherently carry a negative connotation. What do you think? EyeTruth (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I find the cn tag to carry solely negative connotations and also believe the documentary in question is good enough to support the claim in article. But I suppose that's not much good if you disagree! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is not about what I disagree with or what you agree with. It's about a cited source not having the info attributed to it. Ok, I'll make this extremely simple for you: Please point out what part of the documentary says that Stavka received reports of the imminent invasion at 12:30 AM, and what part says anything about Stavka immediately issuing a warning in response? EyeTruth (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hm... we might be talking across purposes here... we're talking about finding a source to support this claim, "only a small number of units were alerted in time" right? That's what I've been talking about this whole time, not Stavka reports! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is not about what I disagree with or what you agree with. It's about a cited source not having the info attributed to it. Ok, I'll make this extremely simple for you: Please point out what part of the documentary says that Stavka received reports of the imminent invasion at 12:30 AM, and what part says anything about Stavka immediately issuing a warning in response? EyeTruth (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I find the cn tag to carry solely negative connotations and also believe the documentary in question is good enough to support the claim in article. But I suppose that's not much good if you disagree! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and I already mentioned that above. But the information attributed to the source still belies the actual information in the source; also already clarified above. The inconsistency needs a fix. Either the passage is rewritten to reflect what its cited source actually says, or other sources that correctly verify the information in the passage are cited. For the later, the best way to get the community's attention to it is to add a {{cn}} tag. That tag does not inherently carry a negative connotation. What do you think? EyeTruth (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but notice it also says, "In a wilderness of confusion, orders were given and then countermanded. Many units received no orders at all". The last sentence supports the claim that not all units were alerted. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the effort. That was exactly the part I checked earlier, since it was the most logical location for that information in the narration. It doesn't say anything about Stavka receiving reports, nor anything about 12:30 AM, nor anything about warning of imminent invasion. It only simply says that conflicting/confusing orders were given and that many units were not alerted. The information attributed to the source, although mostly correct, belies the actual information in the source. EyeTruth (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Finally got down to it. Open the documentary on YouTube or your own computer and fast-forward to 01:09:47. :) Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Take your time buddy. I've been scarce on here lately too, so don't rush. EyeTruth (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that explains the confusion. I guess you skimmed too quickly through most of my earlier replies. Anyways, quickly check them out again and tell me what you think should be the better way to fix the inconsistency between the passage and its cited source, because I've identified a lot other instances, so this should give me a sense of what fix would be deemed favourable by other editors. EyeTruth (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Guys, I am becoming slightly concerned that we are using a TV documentary as a primary source here. A superb source is actually Salisbury Harrison, The 900 Days. The siege of Leningrad. Although not the newest source it has rich detail published in the "semi Glasnost" period in Soviet historiography in the early 60s which briefly occurred on the Soviet preparations for the invasion in the hours before the attack, which were not as poor as the article may be implying. For instance, the Baltic fleet and the Leningrad military distict was at full combat readiness as were several other military districts. There is evidence that these were local initiatives, especially by the commander of the Leningrad district and Baltic fleet, and there are further examples from districts in the south. I have my copy and will start using it to indicate that Soviet preparations were far more nuanced than a blanket "WTF was that?". The immediate pre-invasion situation was more complex than that. Comments on this please before I go ahead? Irondome (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Awesome. By all means edit away. If Harrison also touched on the operations of Army Group North before Leningrad, that would be golden, because the invasion section currently focuses almost only on AG Center while going off with some unnecessary details. And yes, the Soviets were not unprepared. They just got hit while in the process of major reorganization, which clearly means they weren't sleeping away. I have Glantz's Operation Barbarossa: Hitler's Invasion of Russia that details Soviet preps on the eve of the invasion (and typical of Glantz's works, draws on a host of Soviet primary sources), but I'm just not ready to use my current free time to flip pages and find page numbers yet. I intended to get to it when I get some more free time on my hands later this month. EyeTruth (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is a huge amount of new material there, which oddly has not been mentioned recently. Big focus on the north. A taster. 24 hrs before the invasion, Baltic fleet get an interrupted radio message from a Soviet merchant ship saying that they have been detained at Danzig, which prompts BF to begin minelaying, without orders from Moscow. Loads of good stuff. Also additional info on army group north and the military situation in the Baltic states, including Red army defences and plans, naval evacuations carried out by the Baltic fleet, detailed accounts of the fighting in the Baltic states, and rich info on pro-German local sabotage there. All first hand accounts by Soviet commanders. There appears to have been a brief liberalisation of information, a window of a sort of pre-glasnost in 63-65 which Salisbury took full advantage of. Also great new info on the Black sea fleet preperations, again, indicating local initiatives. Jonas Vinther, please comment also. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- As I explained here I don't have any WWII books at my house, and is therefore forced to use TV documentaries. However, I'm well aware everything I cite with those sources can be replaced by academic sources, like books, which I'm only in favor of, so I agree, edit away and replace the documentary sources. That being said, it should not be done in the believe that the documentaries I brought to the article are unreliable, as they aren't. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- That is not the sense that the above thread gives Jonas. Nick-D and Eyetruth both express reservations. They are not a substitute for published works. But they will have to do as a temporary stopgap. They are very vulnerable to challenge at the WP:RELIABLE SOURCES board. Just saying. Regards Irondome (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Jonas, documentaries are not unreliable. They're just not as reliable as some other "better sources", and it's not because of the medium but because of their authorship. The better sources are created by experts on the subject, whereas documentaries just consult these experts. Citing a video of Overy's lecture, like this one, or Glantz's, like this one, is as valid as citing any of their books. Again, it's not about the medium. Anyways, the most pressing issue right now is that some of the info in the article attributed to the documentaries are actually not in the documentary. EyeTruth (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go as far as to say that some of the info in the article attributed to the documentaries are actually not in the documentary based on the recent issue in detail above; I generally cite documentaries very carefully, especially in this article, given its importance. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above, rather, accentuated a serious inconsistency with some info and their cited source. Does the documentary say that Stavka received reports of the imminent invasion at 12:30 AM, and immediately issued a warning in response? EyeTruth (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- No ... (!) ... but obviously I meant overall. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above, rather, accentuated a serious inconsistency with some info and their cited source. Does the documentary say that Stavka received reports of the imminent invasion at 12:30 AM, and immediately issued a warning in response? EyeTruth (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go as far as to say that some of the info in the article attributed to the documentaries are actually not in the documentary based on the recent issue in detail above; I generally cite documentaries very carefully, especially in this article, given its importance. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- As I explained here I don't have any WWII books at my house, and is therefore forced to use TV documentaries. However, I'm well aware everything I cite with those sources can be replaced by academic sources, like books, which I'm only in favor of, so I agree, edit away and replace the documentary sources. That being said, it should not be done in the believe that the documentaries I brought to the article are unreliable, as they aren't. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 12:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is a huge amount of new material there, which oddly has not been mentioned recently. Big focus on the north. A taster. 24 hrs before the invasion, Baltic fleet get an interrupted radio message from a Soviet merchant ship saying that they have been detained at Danzig, which prompts BF to begin minelaying, without orders from Moscow. Loads of good stuff. Also additional info on army group north and the military situation in the Baltic states, including Red army defences and plans, naval evacuations carried out by the Baltic fleet, detailed accounts of the fighting in the Baltic states, and rich info on pro-German local sabotage there. All first hand accounts by Soviet commanders. There appears to have been a brief liberalisation of information, a window of a sort of pre-glasnost in 63-65 which Salisbury took full advantage of. Also great new info on the Black sea fleet preperations, again, indicating local initiatives. Jonas Vinther, please comment also. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Awesome. By all means edit away. If Harrison also touched on the operations of Army Group North before Leningrad, that would be golden, because the invasion section currently focuses almost only on AG Center while going off with some unnecessary details. And yes, the Soviets were not unprepared. They just got hit while in the process of major reorganization, which clearly means they weren't sleeping away. I have Glantz's Operation Barbarossa: Hitler's Invasion of Russia that details Soviet preps on the eve of the invasion (and typical of Glantz's works, draws on a host of Soviet primary sources), but I'm just not ready to use my current free time to flip pages and find page numbers yet. I intended to get to it when I get some more free time on my hands later this month. EyeTruth (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Finally found a source to support Stavka reports section here. HUZZA! Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 10:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nice, that's good. I haven't checked your source yet; but another problem, which I didn't bother mentioning since it wasn't at the heart of the discussion yet, is that Stavka was formed on the evening of 23 June 1941. The NKO (People's Commissariat of Defence) handled everything until Stalin merged it with other Soviet strategic commands to form Stavka, over which he directly presided as the supreme commander. That's why there were only "NKO directives" in the first 2 days of the invasion, instead of Stavka directives. EyeTruth (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. I've checked the source, and three things immediately jumped out. It self-describes itself as an autobiography, it is self-published, and any passage of it that makes an anachronistic claim cannot be taken seriously as a historical source. You should have noticed these things. We should be trying to get the right information — reliable, verifiable and notable — into the article, and not just trying to get the article a GA tag. That was why when I was assessing the passages cited with the documentary, I made corrections to ones that were close but still differed, and tagged the ones that were wholly inconsistent with a failed-verification tag, instead of just deleting everything or tagging them all. (More).
- (Cont'd). One more thing; you replaced a failed-verification tag with a new citation, Soviet Storm. But Soviet Storm literally opens with scenes that explicitly contradicts the passage that its cited for: "As Stalin decided not to run the risk of provoking Hitler, the Soviet Air Force (VVS) was forbidden to shoot down Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft prior to the invasion, despite hundreds of prewar incursions into Soviet airspace." EyeTruth (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- EyeTruth, I hope you don't think of my as a lazy Wikipedian who only cares about getting articles to pass for GA status without them actually meeting the criteria! I'm .... of course! ... also only intererted in reliably, published, third-party sources and did not include the book in question if I had known the things you just said. Also, I don't understand your last paragraph at all; could you rephrase in laymens terms? Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- How can I, when I've seen all your well-intended efforts. You're over interpreting. I just think you're very excited for the GA, and such an excitement on its own is not a bad thing. In the last paragraph in my previous post, the italicized statement is an excerpt from the article, and its citation is Soviet Storm which seems to contradict it. The documentary opens with scenes that shows a German recon aircraft trying to avoid Soviet detection, and eventually one that flew too low and got shot down. This was all before the invasion. EyeTruth (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Problem is now solved. I've removed Ridder 2007 entirely as well as the sentence it supported and replaced it with a new addition which is cited with Russia 1996. I've also found sources for the last "cn" tags in the article. The article should pass now. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- EyeTruth, I hope you don't think of my as a lazy Wikipedian who only cares about getting articles to pass for GA status without them actually meeting the criteria! I'm .... of course! ... also only intererted in reliably, published, third-party sources and did not include the book in question if I had known the things you just said. Also, I don't understand your last paragraph at all; could you rephrase in laymens terms? Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Million Award
|
The Million Award | |
| For your contributions to bring Operation Barbarossa (estimated annual readership: 967,437) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Bobnorwal (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC) |
Blitzkrieg
Have you restored the revert?Keith-264 (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the reminder. And applause for the work you're doing on that article. EyeTruth (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can do more but I feel that it needs a comprehensive review, which I'm not well placed to do what with life interfering with Wiki. Fokker Scourge has the same structural problem of trying to combine an article about a term with a description of events, which don't mesh well. Schlieffen Plan isn't as difficult because it's an article about the idea of the plan and the history of the idea, not a narrative of 1914 using the idea as a concept which I fear complicates the Blitzkrieg page.Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, the article needs a lot of work, and it's not going to be easy work. The nebulous nature of the subject makes it a tough nut to write about, even for experts (like Fanning, Harris and Frieser) that try to tackle it. And the absence of a formal dogma of what its nitty-gritty entails means that different experts form their own opinions for it. EyeTruth (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can do more but I feel that it needs a comprehensive review, which I'm not well placed to do what with life interfering with Wiki. Fokker Scourge has the same structural problem of trying to combine an article about a term with a description of events, which don't mesh well. Schlieffen Plan isn't as difficult because it's an article about the idea of the plan and the history of the idea, not a narrative of 1914 using the idea as a concept which I fear complicates the Blitzkrieg page.Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
May 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Coming to America may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- marcus.pdf Buchwald v. Paramount Pictures Corp. and the Future of Net Profit] — retrieved May 2015]</ref><ref>Thane Rosenbaum,''The Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What's
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Barbarossa
Started a new section in relation to the recently discussed failed documentary verification problems. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 14:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
As you are an active editor of the article, you might want to participate in the review and offer some helpful suggestions. Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 08:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Would appreciate your vote or suggestions for improvement! Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 18:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Jonas, thanks for the notice. I'll check it out once I gt the chance. EyeTruth (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jonas, I did check out the article on several occasions, but I didn't participate as it seemed like a good number of editors were already thoroughly invested in the evaluation process, and I didn't want it to get hotter than it already was. Personally, I felt the article was ready for FA. If not that, a least it's definitely GA material. Try nominating it for GA? EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- EyeTruth, lists cannot be of GA-status, they can only be of FA-status or without any status. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ooops. I've learned a new thing. I never gave much attention to statuses until recently. Talking of which, I think Barbarossa with a little more work may be able to face FA evaluation. EyeTruth (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, but so far my FAC history has not been successful. Therefore, I know I'm not going to initiate the nomination, but if you do it I shall, of course, support it and participate as much I can. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ooops. I've learned a new thing. I never gave much attention to statuses until recently. Talking of which, I think Barbarossa with a little more work may be able to face FA evaluation. EyeTruth (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- EyeTruth, lists cannot be of GA-status, they can only be of FA-status or without any status. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jonas, I did check out the article on several occasions, but I didn't participate as it seemed like a good number of editors were already thoroughly invested in the evaluation process, and I didn't want it to get hotter than it already was. Personally, I felt the article was ready for FA. If not that, a least it's definitely GA material. Try nominating it for GA? EyeTruth (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations!
|
|
The Million Award | |
| For your contributions to bring Battle of Kursk (estimated annual readership: 500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 08:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC) |
Nice job!
.jpg)
|
Kursk Barnstar |
| For all your hard work in getting Battle of Kursk to GA. Thanks! GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for July 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Kursk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southwestern Front. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 10 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Battle of Prokhorovka page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Barbarossa
I think the article meets the FA-criteria by now or is at least very close. That being said, the "Historical significance" section needs expanding. I got a few ideas myself I will try to implement later today, I'll get back to you when I'm finished. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll nominate it soon. Not yet sure, between it and Prokhorovka, which one I'll nominate first. Or I'll do both at same time. EyeTruth (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- FAC might be a jump too far. I'd strongly recommend that you send them to MilHist A-class review first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Sturmvogel. I haven't done FAC before, thanks for pointing in the right direction. EyeTruth (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see why an A-Class review is necessary. I say go ahead and nominate it for FA-status as soon as we've expanded the "Historical significance" section. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because it's the first exposure of the article to multiple knowledgeable eyes. The reviewers at MilHist are more experienced and knowledgeable about military matters than are FAC reviewers, who can often only comment on style, prose and MOS issues because that's all that they know that's relevant to the article under review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Our ACR reviewers tend to focus on getting the facts and conclusions of an article correct and less so on all the other stuff since that will get picked up by the FAC reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Jonas, I think it's fine for the article to go through ACR. The more stages of reviews it goes through, the better. Nothing good is lost. EyeTruth (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, it couldn't hurt. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 10:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because it's the first exposure of the article to multiple knowledgeable eyes. The reviewers at MilHist are more experienced and knowledgeable about military matters than are FAC reviewers, who can often only comment on style, prose and MOS issues because that's all that they know that's relevant to the article under review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see why an A-Class review is necessary. I say go ahead and nominate it for FA-status as soon as we've expanded the "Historical significance" section. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Sturmvogel. I haven't done FAC before, thanks for pointing in the right direction. EyeTruth (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- FAC might be a jump too far. I'd strongly recommend that you send them to MilHist A-class review first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This might interest you!
If you haven't already, click here or here for some wunderbar entertainment. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think I've seen the first video before. Impressive skill that probably takes gazillion hours to master. That's a really neat showcase. EyeTruth (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you're interested on the topic of great tank battle at Prokhorovka, you can contribute your comments to the article's A-Class review. EyeTruth (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. I'll definitely stop by Prokhorovka. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 09:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Population history of Egypt
I've just removed an edit you made in March 2013.[1] I don't see how it is backed in the sources (and see the website as failing WP:RS despite its author). For peer reviewed papers, it's usually best to stick with the conclusions, summaries, etc. Maybe you could go to the article's talk page and explain it if you still think it belongs. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That edit was most likely me returning something removed from the article or a related article earlier. I only watch and try to verify, but have not found the spur to actively contribute. If you tracked down the sources and found them problematic, then that's fine. Thanks. On a side note, I'm curious to know why you think the website fails WP:RS despite its author. I just took a quick glance at it, and it looked alright to me. EyeTruth (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- If he said it in a peer reviewed journal it would be fine. But sometimes people put material on their website that didn't make it past peer review. I'm not saying that's the case here. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- True, you have a point. But in a case where the person is notable in their field, and there is yet no academic or mainstream consensus, then their assertion can be presented in their voice instead of in WP's voice. But I'm not intimately conversant with the subject, so I'm not remotely suggesting that for this particular instance. EyeTruth (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- If he said it in a peer reviewed journal it would be fine. But sometimes people put material on their website that didn't make it past peer review. I'm not saying that's the case here. Doug Weller (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring warning
I have replied to your comment on my talkpage, although I think you should have raised the issue not there but on the article's talkpage.
Let me remind of of WP:EDITWAR. Do not try to enforce your edit. Especially since it was made without prior discussion. Read WP:BRD carefully. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Very ironically, you just broke WP:3RR with your last reversion. EyeTruth (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Re-read that guideline again, please. Three is allowed, more than 3 isn't. So three reverts is what it took for you to remember about WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and get you to come to the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You actually did break WP:3RR. You carried out 4 reversions (even with counting the one you did in two steps as one): 1, 2, 3, 4. One more reversion and I would have joined you in breaking it too. So it is very ironic that you're now the one trying to pull the edit-warring card. EyeTruth (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you can help?
@EyeTruth: I see you helped promote Battle of Prokhorovka to featured article status. I have come across people saying it was the biggest tank battle in history, and then other sources saying it was the Battle of Kursk or the Battle of Brody. I was a bit Confused with situation Since I have gotten Very different answers?Jack90s15 (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Jack90s15. The Battle of Prokhorovka was one of the biggest tank battles. The Battle of Kursk was a massive campaign on a strategic level. Think of Battle of France. You can argue that the Battle of France was the largest tank battle in the Western Front, but it is not really what people will generally consider a battle, there were several army groups involved and was a strategic level operation, yet it is still commonly labelled as a battle. Same thing goes for Kursk. If you exclude these strategic level campaigns from consideration, then you end up with Brody being the largest tank battle in terms of number of tanks involved, and Prokhorovka being pretty high in the list. But note that Brody is bigger primarily because of how many units are included in the count and the duration that is chosen. And that count can reach 6000 tanks as you include more and more units that were fighting in western Soviet Ukraine at the time. EyeTruth (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)