User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Milorad Ekmečić

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Milorad Ekmečić you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Some input

Hi Peacemaker. Hope all is well in these times. There have been a recent (I assume well meaning) edits adding a mass of content to the Jasenovac concentration camp and Ustaše articles that I’d like to you to take a look at. It seems to me that the articles are being crowded with quotes and getting long in general. In fact a piece of the same content was copy and pasted to both articles stressing German number of victims as high as 700,000 even though consensus is 300,000-400,000. Just seems odd so being that you deal with articles of this nature I’d like your inout if you have the time. I made some edits I deemed appropriate but if you could verify If I was wrong to do so it would be appreciated as well. As I trust and respect your judgements. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

G'day, many of these articles on the Ustaše are unencylopaedic because they have WP:UNDUE amounts of graphic and emotive first-person accounts rather than sober academic observations and assessments. I'm working on the Chetniks article at the moment along with quite a few reviews, but I would support any trimming of egregious survivor quotes and over-emphasis of contemporary accounts that just haven't stood up to scrutiny by historians. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
This is an example of what I came across. Yes that is what I was getting at. I will continue looking through. I greatly appreciate your work on the Chetniks by the way. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hello PM. While having a look at that discussion, though I do not want to get involved there as I want to write some new articles while the weather outside is the most enjoyable of the year, the first sentence of the Ustashe came to mind. It says that the Ustashe "was a Croatian fascist, ultranationalist and terrorist organization". WP:Terrorist says that " Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". According to this, since the Ustashe is widely described as "terrorist" by reliable sources, it may stay in the first sentence but with attribution. On the other hand, the WP:Terrorist page says for itself that "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I know a single term in the first sentence is not that much important, but anyways I would like to have your opinion on the interpretation of the guideline in the case of the Ustashe. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources like Tomasevich (2001, p. 32) describe it as terrorist. Which I think is entirely deserved, and it should remain in the first sentence of the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the description as "terrorist" is entirely deserved. If I am not mistaken, members or supporters of the organization continued with terrorism acts even after WW2. So we apply "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The Ustashe were and the neo-Ustashe are absolutely terrorists. They orchestrated assassinations, bombings and so on. Let alone the systematic genocide they waged. Essentially a Catholic ISIS. OyMosby (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Operation Storm

Hi Peacemaker. In the Operation Storm article I noticed two different editors added content about “chauvinism” and the Ustase genocide against the Serbs [1] and [2]. However I don’t see what connection that has with Operation Storm, Milosevic, Tudjman or the war of the 90s. And while cited sources confirm obviously the genocide happened it doesn't connect it with the article’s subject. It seems to me there is an axe to grind (not you obviously but the other two diffs I mentioned) to bring up the Genocide in relativizing with crimes done in the 90s. As if Operation Storm was the “final solution”. It doesn’t make sense to be at the beginning of the background of the article. I’ve notice these users copy and pasting the sentence in many articles about Balkan towns, cities, anything Croatian related as of late. As I see no mention of genocide waged by Chetniks during WWII. The former one seems to be banned for biased edits. I in no way support the disruption and attacks from the IP. But I don’t really see the reason for the content you restored. How is it related? Thanks again for the good work you do on here. I’ve been taking long breaks myself as the nationalist point scoring and pov worries on here have driven me to my whits ends. OyMosby (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is central to the propaganda associated with the war, which of course didn't reflect the reality of the HDZ etc. It isn't in the lead, but is an important part of the background, because such propaganda was central to the creation of the RSK and exodus of Serbs from it in the aftermath. This could be much better explained in the article, but some mention of the use of the NDH as a propaganda tool to influence Serbs against Croats and its role in the exodus is pretty important in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I should add that it depends on the reliable sources. If the reliable sources state that the memory of the Ustase genocide in WWII was a factor in the Croatian War of Independence and Bosnian War, then it should be in the article background. If not, then it shouldn't. I haven't got the time to drill down into this now, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't the case. It certainly was when I was there in 95-96, with Serbs referring to Croats as Ustashas and Croats referring to Serbs as Chetniks etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I suppose I see your point. It provide background to what the Ustase were and how it was a depiction or mindedness had at the time. Would prefer to see a source discuss it specifically. However I have seen myself Croats and Serbs use Ustashe and Chetniks crimes as justification or vilification so I agree with your point. However than the genocidal acts of the Chetniks should also be given background for the readers. Seemed odd though to start right away in the background with it though. Especially seeing two editors who harbor Serbian nationalist sentiment adding it to the article and countless others. As you may have noticed in the uptick of Balkan editors and edits this year. Thank you for your service in the Balkans. Putting yourself in a dangerous position to protect strangers, I cannot stress enough how commendable that is. Have you ever written about your experiences from then? OyMosby (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is definitely an uptick in former Yugoslavian POV here over the last six to twelve months. I haven't done any writing, but have thought about it though. Maybe one day. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Please do. Would be really interesting to read about your experiences as a peacekeeper at the time. Of course I know you are busy these days. Take care and stay safe in these strange times. OyMosby (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
One more thing just to be clear. I was not talking about the mention of NDH or Ustase in general. But the necessity of the Genocide of Serbs sentence. Unless we are saying that the Genocide from WWII was used in the propaganda itself? Sorry just wanted to make sure we were clear on the matter. OyMosby (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The genocide is part and parcel with any mention of the NDH and Ustase. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense for background and context. Just wanted to be clear. Thanks for taking time to write. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
It appears now it was agreed on its removal per Griboski’s edit? Why the change of mind? OyMosby (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m really not focussed on this at present, I think the Background section needs some work, but don’t have time right now. Unfortunately the editor that wrote all the Croatian War of Independence articles is inactive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Just that previous another editor tezwoo had removed the same part about the Genocide by the Ustase and you were adamant about restoring it as per our conversation so wondered why the change when Griboski removed it. Also I had assumed you were the original writer of the article. OyMosby (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

MILHIST Coord election

A few days back, on the MILHIST talk page, Gog the Mild suggested that I should put my name in the coordinator election come September. I really respect their opinion about things, but I still feel a little presumptious for considering running, given that I've only been an editor since last November, and only active in this project for like six months or so. Since the project has a very good current group of coords, I'd get basically no support, which I don't mind at all, as I view the legitimacy of elections as coming from the choice of many candidates (so philosophically, I would think my blowout loss just helps legitimize the system). However, I don't want to run if I don't have the experience/competence to do so. I respect your advice and Gog's probably the most in the project, thanks to working with y'all a lot. I'd like a second opinion about my experience/competence before further considering running. Don't feel the need to answer if you don't want to, I know you're busy on here, and this isn't an urgent thing at all. Thanks. Hog Farm Bacon 01:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

G'day Hog Farm, we usually have a mix of old hands and newer editors in the coord team, and you are the most obvious candidate among newer editors I've come into contact with. Content creators are greatly respected by members of the project, and you have some great runs on the board in such a short time. The main thing is, if you aren't sure about something, ask someone who does know. I'd like to encourage you to nominate, you might be surprised with the support you'll get. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Book review

Please see my Sandbox page for Gallipoli book review. Hugo999 (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Mareeba Mosque

Hi @Peacemaker67. Created an about the Mareeba Mosque in Mareeba, Queensland. As it has some ANZAC history tied up with it, have look if time permits (its not a long read). Want to make sure i did things right as its about ANZACs and not my area of expertise. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Chetniks

Fair enough on the infobox. But in your edit here you may have accidentally removed content instead of moving. OyMosby (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I was still moving it and condensing some stuff, it is back in now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah at the time it only showed the previous edit. Thought it was a mistake. But I am the mistaken one, hehe. Sorry. Not trying to hound or anything. Was just there at the time. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Easy done. BTW, I am going to reduce the size of the infobox, it is currently a grab-bag with no sense to it. I mean, why is Novak in the list of leaders when his unit was about 300–400 strong and of no political or military importance? It is just there to bolster the idea that the Chetniks were multi-ethnic when they were almost exclusively Serbs/Montenegrins. Also the battles list is POV, it makes it look as if the Chetniks were resisting/fighting the Axis throughout the war, when in many of those battles they were actually on the Axis side. We need some discussion of the criteria for inclusion in the infobox for commanders and battles, and the whole Allied/Axis thing is just confusing. IMHO, the infobox is just a magnet for POV pushers and we should pare it right down. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I have been told by some editors (won’t name names) who present the Chetniks as if they were a very progressive multi-ethnic organization so I wouldn’t be surprised that is being pushed. Even portraying them as bigger anti-fascists than Partisans and as true Yugoslav fighters. Anyone saying otherwise or speaking of crimes are simply “Ustashe sympathizers” from seeing conversations on the talk pages. These articles have been pov battlegrounds for years From what I see. Hats off to you for having the patience and nerves to work on them. Cheers. OyMosby (talk)<
Some editors seem to actually believe this stuff, but it is largely because they are basing their views on the work of a significant group of Serbian historians who have departed from global scholarly rigour, turned into historical negationists, gone nationalist and have been writing pseudohistory. This has also been occurring in Croatia. No doubt their work suits the nationalist and anti-communist point of view of the editors in question. In Serbia this revisionism has extended to Serbian primary and high school textbooks which contain complete fabrications about the Chetnik movement and completely ignore its widespread collaboration with the Axis. The Serbian government itself has been involved in mass revisionism (including through school textbooks, but also through the various commissions and rehabilitations) for political reasons because they have wanted to portray themselves as anti-Milošević/anti-socialist, which has been the underlying political theme in Serbia since 2000. Frankly, any historical works that have come out of Serbia since 1990 that haven't been positively reviewed outside of Serbia are suspect until proven otherwise IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you. Definitely an issue in Croatian historiography as well. Pretty much roots planted during the Tudjman era and remains a toxic legacy to this day. Such revisionism and legitimizing false info has allowed the far-right to thrive. And raise a generation pf further disinformation. While fringe minority, they are loud and given too many free passes by the government. Such as (claims that Jasenovac was only a labor camp or that Chetniks were somehow worse than Ustashe). Tudjman’s idea of raisning Croatian moral by sweeping shame under the rug. Trying to equalize Ustashe and Partisans. Turning a blind eye to far right elements and so on. Irony is his actions sabotaged stability and morals for the country and it’s people. And sometimes this leads to problematic pov warriors online such as on Wikipedia. In fact I see on the Operation Storm page a new editor popped up denying RS and that ethnic cleansing was carried out by Serbs and that only Serbs were victims of ethnic cleansing [here]. And on the [Propoganda] page keeps removing Serbian propaganda example claiming it “makes Serbs look bad and that nobody believed the image anyway“ and wrote this [screed] on the talk page among many victim essays. I suspect sockpuppeting on the propaganda page among sudden new accounts and IPs. Ain’t no rest for the wicked I suppose. Good luck with the ever growing nationalist presence on here. I respect your patience and endurance, hehe. Much needed. OyMosby (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
See my Yugoslavia and the Allies article. Hugo999 (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Is this to me or Peacemaker?OyMosby (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about factoid

The factoid “ During the 1920s, Pavelić emerged as the leading spokesman for Croatian independence.[1]” has been recently added to a few Ustashe related articles such as [here]. Wasn’t Stjepan Radic and the Peasant Party the most popular spokeman and group among separatists not Pavlic and the Ustashe party as the quote implies? Wondering in all you have read, your take on this. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe after Radić was murdered, but even then it is highly questionable, as he was out of the country, and Maček was popular among Croats and was working towards autonomy at least from 1928 to 1939. The reality is that Radić recognised the central government, the monarchy, and the Vidovdan constitution in 1925 prior to joining the government, so after that I think his credentials as an independence spokesman were tarnished. Doesn't mean the alternative spokesman was Pavelić though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
So it is questionable to assert Pavlic and the Ustashe as most popular among separatists or the biggest proponents of independence? I’m having trouble finding much info on the main forces from the era. OyMosby (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Stjepan Radić, the Croat Peasant Party, and the Politics of Mass Mobilization, 1904-1928 by Mark Biondich is good on this, but even he recognises that Radić abandoned total independence in the early 20s to aim for a Yugoslav confederation with an autonomous Croatia, and even dropped that later. So, on full Croatian independence, maybe the miniscule Party of Right and then Pavelić were the main ones advocating it, but really, Pavelić wasn't very influential amongst Croats (the HSS was the main Croat party), so it is a bit of a long bow to draw to say he was the "leading spokesman" on Croatian independence, so it does seem like an overstatement. I'd have to look at it in detail, and just don't have time right now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I see well thanks for taking the time to talk. I was right in that you are quite knowledgeable about the subject. Take care. OyMosby (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

AfDs

Myth of Tito was closed as a redirect so it's another step towards cleanup. Back in May, in a discussion at Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia I said that if nobody bothered to clean up, verify bibliography, remove what can't be included in the scope of the article and verify that it is a legitimate subject, I would nominate it to AfD. Three months later - as expected - nobody has done a single thing. Do you think that more time should be given or should I nominate it?--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I reckon AfD it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I moved it to AfD.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
OK. Will comment there shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
How long will the AfD stay open for comments? Just wanted to see how much time I have. OyMosby (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there a deadline at all? OyMosby (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Usually seven days (sometimes much longer if comments are still being added). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. Didn’t see your comment there. Curious if you think there is a case for deletion. I haven’t been able to find any nee RS to back up the article. I can see however some canvassing may be happening again there on the page for deletion.... OyMosby (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
It is a bit of a toss-up to my mind. On one hand, it is a lineball case of TNT because it is written in such a POV way, on the other, there has been a book written about it. I haven't yet looked at the bonafides of the book and the news coverage of it to determine if it is really a single source article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah not sure myself. Either way. OyMosby (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I keep seeing “cultural genocide” being brought up in discussion on the delete page. And it seems clear the line between the type of editors supporting deletion and supporting keeping the article as is. And I see canvassing going on too. Again. Ridiculous really. OyMosby (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I was working on Indiana Union regiments and tagged some G6s

FYI I flagged new admin User:Eddie891 with the tags, thinking some experience with speedy and move might be useful. I anticipate clearing all these out in state alpha order within the next weeks. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Got through Iowa with one only on G6. BusterD (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Vermont now done. New Hampshire done. BusterD (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Kansas looks like a bit of a mess. In the case of militia units ONLY known by that qualifier, I'm inclined to keep the pagename unchanged. What do you think? BusterD (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  • What happened, is that I goofed, and made a couple of attempts to try and correct what I did. As I recall the sequence of what I did, I deleted 4th Iowa Cavalry Regiment to make way for 4th Iowa Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, but I didn't do it correctly. So, everything else was trying to correct what I did. I think 4th Iowa Volunteer Cavalry Regiment is where the nominator wanted it to be. If I am in error, feel free to correct it. — Maile (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Further Discussion

Would you be interested in exchange emails to further discuss some of the books and some questions I have instead of me taking up space on your talk page? Feels awkward using using wiki format and such. If you are interested. I’d also like to offer my help if you need with other areas on Wikipedia. If you need. Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick note

I nominated the article Rajinder Singh (brigadier) for deletion. I borrowed a few words written by you from the GA comments for the AFD reason. Thanks. DTM (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It is unlikely to achieve consensus, as some will say he played an important part in the 47-48 war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for Yugoslav torpedo boat T6, Yugoslav torpedo boat T4, and Zaharije Ostojić. Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Zawed! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Never too late

The Helmet of Peace
I was looking for peacekeepers, and I got more than what I expected — peacemakers. Though my methods were wrong, and my writing was wrong, the MILHISTORY people still showed their cool. Thanks to you and everyone who brought peace to Bangladesh Liberation War. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Happy to help. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:59, 30 August 2020 (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. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Commissioner Government, "about a short-lived collaborationist puppet government established by Nazi Germany in territory they retained under military occupation after the partition of Yugoslavia following the April 1941 Axis invasion. The members were pro-German, anti-Semitic and anti-communist, and believed that Germany would win the war. The Aćimović government lacked any semblance of power, and was merely an instrument of the German occupation regime, carrying out its orders within the occupied territory of Serbia. Unable to cope with a mass uprising which began in early July, it was replaced in late August. To my eternal embarrassment, many years ago I AfD'd this article, thinking it wasn't notable. So I've effectively rescued it from myself ..."! - What an article history!. I recently received an article rescue barnstar, and am proud. Mark your calendar for 1 September, a TFA day for me, after a year of none. Article history also complicated, with last step that Brian gave me the legacy of his sources, a few weeks before he died. It's another tribute to him, on top of the dedication to the Pope happening on 1 September, and our concert same date - per the sheer coincidence that it was the only date all wanted soloists could make, - we found the dedication date only later when researching. Pictured on my user page, and looking now as if from a different world (today's world pictured on my talk page). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I’ll look out for it. Great that Brian is still contributing! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
September
It happened, in great collaboration, fine Main page, and see also. - Brian's spirit is still quite alive, thank goodness! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period

I'm leaning towards an AfD about Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period. IMO it's a conspiracy theory and can't be improved in any way, shape or form. Have you come up with anything in your bibliography that could justify its continued existence on wikipedia?--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid

Would you be able to look at the following article. It's currently a Stub class. Re: Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid Adamdaley (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. C, nearly a B (see my edit summary). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind giving your opinion...

... on the discussion of column widths on the talk page of Hasdrubal, son of Hanno, my current ACR. The debate has run on to the point that I feel a little intimidated. I may also be making an idiot of myself. (If I am, feel free to say so.) Your opinion, if you felt it appropriate to give it, would be valued. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

If you get the time

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you get the time, could you quickly verify if my edits seem appropriate in Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia? Would like to have a neutral party second guess. The intro seemed to inadvertently downplay extent of collaboration and assistance with Axis forces in the Serbian territory. Of course no where Near to the Croatian Ustase. But I have seen some editors try to widen the gap more than appears according to history... The article changed over time so not aure how much you are familiar with it nowadays. While Nedic’s regime wasn’t as active or eager to pursue persecution, they were more than simple saviors of Serbian refugees as the intro originally portrayed them. They did assist to an extent the German Army who ran the extermination. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The Commissioner Government article (which is an FA), captures the attitude and involvement of the puppet governments in the Holocaust pretty well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
It talks about just a short lived puppet government that existed for a few months. How does it capture involvement in the Holocaust or about the later puppet government? I was asking if my edits were good. Not sure I follow what you are saying maybe it’s just late in the night for me... Are you saying I should follow the FA article as a guidance? It says less about the Holocaust than the article I am talking about. Thing is the FA article doesn’t talk much about Nedic or his regime. The FA article focuses on the first short lived government within such Short time didn’t do much. It doesn’t talk much about collaborators assistance in the Holocaust. 1941 onwards isn’t really covered there. Again not sure I understand your reply.OyMosby (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The Criticism section of the Commissioner Government article provides a summary of the approach of the quisling governments to the Holocaust. There was essentially no difference in the attitudes of the two puppet governments to the so-called "Jewish question". I can check Prusin and ensure he is referring to both. Prusin is the most recent and best book on the occupied territory available, although Serbia and the Serbs in World War II edited by Ramet is very good on the Holocaust there. I suggest you have a look at them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Were there no crimes at the hands of Nedic’s or the Commissioner governments? I see no crimes section in the article. The criticism section barely goes into detail nor explain the extent Of the rile collaborators played. No details of crimes or so on. Seems odd. The extent of Serbian collaboration Boils down to a small “criticism” section? Again not sure I follow your point. Are you saying my edits are way out of line? I was asking your take on my edits. OyMosby (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Of course there were, but the first government was very short-lived. The only thing I really take issue with is your deletion of "The one area in which the puppet administration did exercise initiative and achieve success was in the reception and care of hundreds of thousands of Serb refugees from other parts of partitioned Yugoslavia." That is actually just about the only success they achieved, and should be in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I thought you said both the first and second government are being talked about... Is it not strange to talk about accepting refugees and not about crimes the puppet regime took part in? In the intro? It implies that the only thing they achieved was humanitarian aid and nothing about assisting in carrying out the Holocaust.. Also I’m not understanding your point about the Commissioner Government article in relation to my edits in Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. Also you said There was essentially no difference in the attitudes of the two puppet governments to the so-called "Jewish question". But the section doesn’t say what the attitude was nor what they did. I’m a bit confused about the point you were initially trying to make. OyMosby (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but if that is the case, then we would include both the crimes and the successes in the lead. We don't just delete the humanitarian success because the lead doesn't mention the crimes, we add information about the crimes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I see and I will add it back. Though I see no sited source for the statement about refugees and it being the only success or initiative. Though how was it the only initiative they took when they assisted the Germans in capturing Jewish civilians. Where they not “successful” in doing so? Also the historian Isreal notes that Nedic’s regime was not reluctant to aid the Germans but the opposite in contradiction with the FA article you mentioned. I’ll try to find the quote. Hence my confusion in-all of this.


Also sorry maybe I’m a bit slow as of late, but I still don’t quite understand what the Commissioner Government article and the two books you recommended have to do with my discussion about Nedic’s regime and the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. Or what you were trying to tell me with it. Are you saying I have a wrong perception in my initial post on your talk page? My point was there seem to be some editors (as we discussed before recently) I come across that seem to downplay crimes and collaboration by Serbs during WWII. Not sure if your point was you disagree. I hate wasting your time but just wanted to make absolutely sure I understand what you are trying to tell me. OyMosby (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Peacemaker but did I say something to put you off? I genuinely wasn’t following your mean so was looking for clarification is all...OyMosby (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Nothing to apologise for. I am just busy with other stuff. The two books I recommended are two of the best sources on the subject, and both cover the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article and the the involvement of the puppet regimes in the Holocaust in Serbia. Feel free to have a look at them and add material from them to the body, then summarise what they say about the complicity of the quislings in the Holocaust in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha thought maybe you got frustrated with my questions. Will check out the books. Though what was the reason for bringing up the Commissioner’s Government FA article in respect to my initial comment in respect to my question about my edits for the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia? I took it as you feeling I have a wrong take on history or something. OyMosby (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Because Prusin (whose observations about both puppet governments are the same in respect of the Holocaust and other crimes), is used extensively in that article and the citations will guide you where to find relevant information about that aspect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh you mean to verify my edits. Yeah looking at Isreal’s book he characterizes Nedic’s Government as not so reluctant but enthusiastic to help it seems. Will grab the quote later. So I am at odds with Isreal and Prusin’s views on the intent and actions. Also would I be able to communicate with you via email in the future if that is fine with you. Would be easier than dealing with talk page. OyMosby (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
In that case, we compare and contrast what Prusin and Israel (and any other reliable sources) say. Whether you are personally at odds with their views is immaterial, we just reflect what the reliable sources say, and don't insert our opinions. I prefer to communicate on my talk page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I wasn’t stating my opinions but what the Isreal said.... I am not personally at odds with anyone but saying Isreal is at odds with Prusin. I’m just the messenger. I still don’t understand what the Commissioner Government article had to do with my edits is all. As for communication I had seen other users request to ask you questions via email so thought it was an option.Also was interested in sending you a book by Joso Tomasevich if you want it. Also have some personal concern I was hoping I could talk to you about as I trust you most and being followed and hounded on here would prefer to ask via email ..OyMosby (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I have everything JT wrote, but I’m happy for you to email me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I appreciate that a lot. And good on you for that report. I will email in the future Wiki related questions and concerns. Some you deal with as well. But personal matters have popped up. The biggest currently my father is in hospital after suffering a major heart attack. So I will be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while. Don’t know how long. Keep up the fantastic work Peacemaker. I appreciate all you have done outside of Wikipedia in the past and present and al you volunteer to do on Wikipedia. Take care and stay in good health mate. OyMosby (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
No worries. I hope your Dad recovers well. My Dad had his first heart attack at 56 and lived to 86. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Peacemaker67:. My dad is 62 and it was his first. He was on the floor in pain, my mother in distress. Feels like a fever dream. Doctor says we are lucky he got there early or he may not be alive right now. Your dad sounded like a tough man. I hope this is the first and last attack for him. Thanks again for the kind words. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Had to take my dad back to the hospital tonight. Had some minor chest pain. Had to leave him there to stay a night or two for observation. The nightmare continues. How was it for your dad when he had his if I can ask? How long for his recovery? I feel like I’m losing my mind. OyMosby (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
They put a pacemaker in, and he was up and about within a week or so although a bit short of breath for a while. He had his pacemaker replaced a couple of times over the years. I hope he recovers quickly. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh wow. Perhaps heart attack isn’t the death sentence I initially thought it was. Cheers to your dad for living a long life! My Dad is doing better. Taking him to the doc for a check up tomorrow. Just follow up on the article. Is the discussion of Nedic’s regime “UNDUE” in the intro? Another editor mentioned this to me. Thanks OyMosby (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
That's great to hear. I can't see anything egregiously undue about mentions of the Nedić regime in the lead. In what respect? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
No clue. Person told me “ Some of the info on the lead, particularly on Nedic's regime seems undue” so I’ll see what they say. Figured you would have said something oh well. I’m gonna go unwind. Honestly I’m grateful for the time you put into Wikipedia. If I lived in Australia I’d buy you a beer mate. Stay well. OyMosby (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
What do you think about the conclusion on the Ante Pavelić talk page?OyMosby (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
it was a justified close. Personally I think there are a lot of nationalist editors trying to erase Yugoslavia, and I consider that is what id being done there, but we operate on consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I suppose so. I think there was some meat puppetry and canvasing as usual in it as well. They have a traveling pack that goes article to article with amazing coincidence. One of the no votes conflated Croat ethnicity with Croatian nationality. Draža Mihailović article puts him as Yugoslavian Serb yet see no objections there. As for those nationalist editors I think it was more to do with trying in legitimizing NDH as an official Croatia and him as Croatian therefore NDH as officially Croatia. Despite him being born in Bosnia. Same reason for replacing NDH with Croatia wherever they can. During WWII there was a puppet state but not a legitimate country of Croatia. It isn’t even regarded as a predecessor, Socialist Republic of Croatia is. But this is what POV pushers want. I have seen similar nonsense going on. Tired of it really. Makes me just want to walk away from Wikipedia as I cannot stomach much more of the nationalist bullshit using this platform for nefarious goals. As same editors love to label Croat notable people in articles as Yugoslavs or Yugoslavian instead of Croatian. But when it is an evil Croat then they are not Yugoslavian they are Croatian. I also find it funny that the individual who started the RfC accosted me in the edit diffs of the article calling me a “sore loser” is now playing “sore loser” appealing for the Destruction of Books in Croatia article. The irony is surreal. OyMosby (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The gall of some people is gobsmacking. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bill Kibby scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Bill Kibby article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 31, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jim! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Debate over mercenaries and belligerents

Hello Peacemaker67. I was looking through the edit history in the American Revolutionary War, Talk page and noticed that you were once involved in the debates over the term mercenaries. Currently we are debating whether we should refer to the Hessians as mercenaries or auxiliaries. The discussions start here and continue here. Any opinions and insights you can offer are welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You might also be interested in a merge proposal taking place here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Angelo Iachino

Please check out the following: Angelo Iachino. Adamdaley (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

G'day Adam, I note most of it is the work of a blocked sock and it needs more citations (I've tagged it), and it is slightly POV in parts on face value, but what specifically? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Was going to say

Was going to say you could archive that old thread (instead of freezing it) since the conversation was all over the place on different topics from Wiki to real life situations and quite an eyesore haha. You beat me to it. OyMosby (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I like to keep threads on my talk page on one subject, which facilitates automatic archiving. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha for the future. Sorry about that. OyMosby (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 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 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

I removed "medieval Serbian" flag from these articles:[1],[2],[3] and[4]. But unfortunately there is no improvement. Mikola22 (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

How to link?

Re: "the 81 mm mortar you are looking for is the Polish license-made Brandt Mle 27/31". Good find, but how to link it in the text? Pl wiki has separate articles on pl:81 mm moździerz Mle 27/31 Brandt and pl:81 mm moździerz piechoty wz. 31. In all honesty I don't know if it makes sense to describe them separately. Do you think the Polish version should have a stand alone article on en wiki one day? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I've replied there. Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the second question. No, on en WP, the Polish name should be a redirect to the Brandt article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

New Member

Hi Peacemaker. As a new member of Project Military History, I was wondering if you could include me as well in The Bugle Project News Section new editor introduction. So that if there are any members who need help in my area of interrst they could reach out. Thanks for the welcome on my page. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, being introduced as a new member on The Bugle Project News section may help notifying anyone needing my assistance or help me as well. Honestly I’d like to start focusing my edits on non-Balkan related material as well. Detox. You know. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Done. I totally understand. I work on Australian Milhist articles for a break from the Balkans maelstrom myself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Manipulation on The Axis Powers Article

Some IP comes in and changes The Independent State of Croatia to “Croatia” and when I reverted it back I am being told to take it to the talk page? Funny enough the two who reverted me have vested interests in doing this.

One who desperately wanted to reinvent the info box to “simplify” it leaving NDH up top among other non-puppet states. Removing all other puppet states or puppet regimes. (This was done without consensus I think) Even claiming NDH wasn’t a puppet state but joined the axis on their own as seen [Here also the archive thread of a weird push to remove much of the list]. The change included only Tripartite states (while failing to denote those that were puppet states installed by the axis themselves). I’m not sure if NDH can be classified as an “Axis Power” as they were under German command end-of the day. You know more so I’m sure you could give your take on that matter. It seems more like a POV push to connect Modern Croatia to NDH as much as can be gotten away with cleverly. Even though the modern state is officially a successor to the Socialist Republic of Croatia who was a successor to the Croatian Banovina in the Kingdom of Croatia. Unless I’m in the wrong?

This is an repeated issue as on The Tripartite article [Here] where you wanted to keep the full names. Is it not on the person imposing new changes to gain consensus on the talk page?

For many years the infobox was like this [1] then without consensus a couple editors changed it to this [2] again no consensus. Then it became this removal of puppet governments [3] with no understandable reason as it wasn’t that crowded. And finally this[4]. And again despite many editors trying to re-establish the original version 1 or at least 2 the same two editors have commandeered the article reverting them all without consensus claiming it was all decided on the talk page.

Sorry to once again bother you but you seem like the only non invested interests editor who edits in Balkan related materials. Wish there were more of you. OyMosby (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by calling me "vested"? Srnec (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for watching my edit history page. Hi. “Vested” as in your vision of how the infobox is to be structured with a very strong overruling opinion. You told me to it “take to the talk page” because I reverted a new change an IP made that you happen to like. They should look for consensus not I. What on earth is wrong with the original version [1] of the article that has been for over 5 or 6 years maybe more? Because one person disliked it and you as well. There was no RfC. Countless other editors tried to restore it to version 1 or 2 which should tell you something.... There doesn’t seem to be consensus, just two editors wanted it in such a way. When I brought this up on the talk long ago it fell on deaf ears. OyMosby (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, changing NDH to Croatia is clear POV pushing and I will report repeated attempts to impose it, and if I don't consider myself involved will apply DS myself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
There’s that and more going on on the Axis Powers page. You are a non-Balkan editors so I came to you as the talk page falls to deaf ears. OyMosby (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Four editors (Illegitimate Barrister, KIENGIR, an IP and myself) have put the short form in an infobox full of short forms. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not only talking about forms but the listing order. You didn’t demand Barrister to go to the talk page before changing the names did you? Example puppet governments and such which a number of other editors tried to reinstate but were reverted by you or KIENGIR as you mentioned them by name. I’m not looking to turn Peacemaker’s talk page into a forum so no need to call in all the troops. Again not interested in this becoming a forum on his page but a one to one grievance in conversation with Peacemaker. I didn’t name names neither should you. The diffs are for article version purposes only. Not the person who made the diff. Last I have to say here. OyMosby (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Croatia for NDH isn't the same as other short forms, all the others existed before WWII, and if you can't see it is POV point-making you need to think about the need to edit neutrally. I am happy to take this ANI for a view from other admins, and I couldn't care less about IPs, there is a lot of meat puppetry going on at present. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
My editing is netural. Do whatever you think best. Srnec (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I cannot help but chime in to this. ” The Slovak and Croatian states of the infobox were complicit on their own. Nor were they "installed" by Germany or Italy.” Is a “neutral” thing to say? Let alone removal of puppet governments despite it not making the box much longer? It does the opposite of improving the article. OyMosby (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing more to add to this issue what I already pointed out in the discussion in the Tripartite Pact talk, I uphold that.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC))
Looks that an RfC has been opened on how to handle the info box [RfC on Axis Powers Info Box] OyMosby (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I've commented there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I see. Though I was surprised that you are unsure if NDH was a puppet state? I thought it was a historical fact at this point that you also viewed as well? Was it not installed by Axis powers and to some level had to answer to Germany and Italy? OyMosby (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Tomasevich does indeed label NDH a puppet state throughout his books. So I’m a bit confused on your stance. Sorry if I’m slow on this.OyMosby (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
He specifically titles the 2001 book part about the NDH as "An Italian-German Quasi Protectorate". I disagree with the need to parse this in the infobox. They signed, that is all that the infobox needs to say. The detail goes in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you delete something for me?

Can you use your admin bit to nix the redirect Second Battle of Newtonia Site (no page history that needs preserved) so I can move User:Hog Farm/Second Battle of Newtonia Site, a completed userspace draft, to that title? Hog Farm Bacon 02:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess it wouldn't been better just to use WP:RM/T directly. Hog Farm Bacon 02:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
It isn't a problem, I'm always happy to use the tools to help project members. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears I'm being targeted - can you suggest what I do next?

Hi @Peacemaker67: you recently gave some feedback on an article I've worked here [[5]]. Since I've made those changes another editor has undone large amounts of content [[6]] But not just on that first article. It appears the editor has looked at the last half dozen articles I've worked on in the political space and deleted about 150kb of content, such as •here [[7]] •here [[8]] •here [[9]]

Though, curiously, no changes have been made to articles I've contributed to on the other side of politics, such as: •here [[10]] •here [[11]]

I sense that my work is being targeted and I would appreciate your guidance as to what I should do next.The Little Platoon (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I would revert the changes and direct the editor to discuss on the talk page in the first instance, per WP:BRD. If there is edit warring behaviour after you've done that, consider reporting at WP:AN/3 and starting a neutrally-worded WP:RFC to gain a consensus position on the inclusions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Yep. Makes sense. Thank you.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Blackburn

Hi, I'm very pleased to see that the Arthur Blackburn article was just promoted to FA. As I noted in the FAC, it really is an excellent piece of work. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, that means a lot. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020 GAN backlog drive!

-- Eddie891 Talk Work 12:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

All is well with the world

 The Lead Coordinator stars 
On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your re-election to the position of Lead Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Lead Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! Congratulations, Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Gog, congratulations to you too, and thanks for doing the election housekeeping! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Occupation template

Hi from across the ditch - thanks and I will take a look at the occupation article. NealeFamily (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hope it is helpful! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks a lot for your contributions to Milhist! R34p3r2006 (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks mate! I do what I can. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hope all is well

Hi Peacemaker, I see you are noting you are busy for a week. Hope all is well. Take care. OyMosby (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, just away in the motorhome for ten days. Back soon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a good time. Enjoy man. Went hiking Mt. Washington in New Hampshire here in the states over the weekend. A much needed getaway. OyMosby (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Welcome back! How was your trip? OyMosby (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
It was really good, but I'm glad to be back in my proper bed... I'm too old for this shit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Haha, oh come now, must have been nice to unplug for a bit!OyMosby (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep, it sort of was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 50 reviews between July and September 2020. Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Review quality checkup

Well, I'm wondering a little bit about my reviewing. I noticed I topped the column at the MILHIST quarterly reviewing, and one of these was a support of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents with very few comments, and that ACR passage has been strongly challenged by a well-respected editor. If I'm gonna be a prolific reviewer, it's best for all involved if I'm a quality reviewer. (Also, I'm probably going to quarantine tomorrow, so I'm gonna have a lot of time on my hands) I've reviewed a couple FACs and ACRs of yours. Did you find them to be of quality? I personally don't like the idea of insufficient quality article slipping through, and I don't want to be part of the problem. Hog Farm Bacon 04:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, any time this sort of criticism is made, it is appropriate to examine our own reviewing practices and see where we can improve, but I think we need to be clear about where we, as a project, have particular strengths, and where we have weaknesses. Not all ACRs are equal, despite Sandy's implication that they were all of high quality in the past, that just isn't true. I have become keenly aware that we often struggle to gain sufficient high quality reviews at ACR for politico-military incidents and biographies, especially where there are controversies involved. With the greatest respect to those that write them, these types of articles are much more challenging to write and review than a purely military bio of a relatively junior officer or award recipient, or a ship, squadron or unit that didn't engage in anything controversial. Some battles are a bit more challenging to review, but in my experience, the politico-military bios, especially of controversial figures like Noriega and Kesselring are amongst the hardest to write and adequately review, especially if you aren't familiar with the subject area. Personally, I think there is a bit of "inherited criticism" going on with the LE and JE incidents article, because the Noriega one is really the one that has been comprehensively and justifiably criticised (and I take my part in that on the chin). Some of the comments about the former are quite weakly supported, whereas the Noriega review is quite strongly backed up. It is only recently that we introduced a formal source review requirement to ACR, perhaps we need to beef up the guidance there, and I'd be interested in any ideas you have in that respect. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Listing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I seem to be followed my infobox edits undone concerning NDH specifically with a history of focus on NDH it seems in past months particularly naming. HERE and [HERE2 Could you take a look to see if my edits were so off? Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that is labouring the point. The NDH only needs to be in the infobox once as a belligerent, not under both Italy and Germany. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Then perhaps under Germany only? Point is why would they no be listed under who has ultimate say like any protectorate or puppet? Same as the Yugoslav Partisans page I linkedOyMosby (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
It is unnecessary parsing, which seems to be trying to minimise. I don't support it any more than I support separating the Chetniks from other collaborators. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I did not remove them from collaborators. But if listing puppets and protectorates, whoch NDH was. Why not do so? It comes across the opposite of minimizing but maximizing them to equals of Germany and Italy. No?OyMosby (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Unless NDH was indeed separate from Germany and Italy with same freedoms. Despite Tomasovich pointing out Germans saw the opposite. OyMosby (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't follow. Just use a note like the other ones. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Then why have puppet and protectorate section to begin with in the infobox? Why are other puppets listed under Italy and Germany? If we follow Tomasovich’s views my edits seem to moe sense? Tomasovich's calls them a Puppet state and Quasi Protectorate that wouldn’t exist nore continue exist without the axis powers. He seems to feel strongly about that. If I am minimizing anything than so is Tomasovich.
I’m frustrated in that I don’t get why they are treated different. If it could be explained it would be appreciated. But I don’t appreciate being accused of minimizing them. I just would like to here the logic really. I hope you understand my intentions are per rationale not towing nationalist lines like some other editors on here. OyMosby (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Depends on the article. On World War II in Yugoslavia I would just use a note, and on Yugoslav Partisans I would keep the puppet states subheading. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
So my edit for Yugoslav Partisans my edit is fine then. For the WWII article, not that I am comparing other regimes but they have notes as well but are still listed under Italy or Germany. Look I know in then grand scheme of things this is just flies on an elephants ass and an annoyance at your expense, but I think it is important for the readers as most just read the intro and infobox and base their education up to that. I’ve experienced first hand how people make bold judgements ignoring tiny notes and allOyMosby (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Infoboxes are not the place for nuance. Keep them simple is my motto. Notes help us do that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Right then why list some under Italy and Germany? They have notes already. In fact on the Yugoslav Partisan infobox it was a random IP editor that separated Protectorates and NDH separately clearly a POV editor. See 2018 same ol nonsense . If we wish to just list belligerents without over categorizing per country then why not go back to this But with full names It seemed to be Serbian IPs that came in around 2018 changing these boxes. Never was there a talk initiated when they created these subcategories. Yet a editor demands I take it to the talk page when making changes they dislike. Complete double standards. And I have a concern I need to talk to you about a second wave that may be comingOyMosby (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
There are massive differences between states (including puppet ones that could establish and carry out genocidal policies without interference from their protectors, like the NDH) puppet governments (like the GNS who couldn't scratch themselves without German approval), and auxiliaries who just fought for one of the states/puppet states (or for themselves). I am getting royally sick of all this parsing of infoboxes and I'm going to start blocking editors that continue with it. And please, draft a comment, check it then post it, don't post five edits to your original comment, it is doing my head in and causing edit conflicts. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I already mentioned I am not comparing the severity of the entities. No point in pointing that obvious fact to me. Go after the ones that parsed the infoboxes to begin with. Block me I don’t care. It is not relevant how each state acted. A puppet state is a puppet state. A protectorate is a protectorate. If editor’s want to parse sub categories than bloody well stick with them. Not move away a puppet sate because it was more autonomous or waged genocide. That’s a pov approach. Block Tomasevich while you’re at it. I make edits as im thinking real time hence my constant revisions. But your “massive” differences don’t suddenly make the NDH not a puppet or a puppet protectorate. No matter the autonomy. Lets go by their official classification since some one other than me imposed classification to begin with in the infoboxes. Check the edit histories if you don’t believe me. And I am sick of IPs changing around the infoboxes consequence free meanwhile I get threatened with a block when I pose mine. Madness. As I think I am one of the more logical of Balkan editors willing to talk it out yet once again wiki discretions are brought to my face. And I am sick of pov editors running around worry free yet we are here blathering about having me blocked. Go ahead. Enjoy dealing with all the pov warriors on your own. I respected your status, knowledge and efforts on Balkan articles. I still don’t get why if we are classifying entities formed or answered to Germany and Italy, why NDH an Italaian-German Puppet Protectorate State wouldn’t be listed under them? As that is what they were. Else get eid of the parsing all together for Christ sake if consistency means nothing. The whole NDH carried out genocide on their own va GNS not doing so as reasoning to not list NDH as Puppet or Protectorate of Italy/Germany is one of the more baffling things yet I’ve come across in terms of rational. I don’t recall reding this in Tomasovich’s works.OyMosby (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not threatening to block you. I am trying to get across the point that carrying on about infoboxes is one of the most useless things you can do on WP, and it drives me to distraction, not just on Balkans article, across the whole project. There are at least three articles right now with walls of text about one line in an infobox, when those same editors could be actually improving the article. It is a complete waste of time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
It felt that way as I was one of those editors tangled up in those talk pages. So thought I struck a nerve with you. Peacemaker it’s the principle of it that is aggravating. Some IP parsed the infoboxes while back. I try to go by how each entity is classified. NDH being run by a Genocidal maniace doesn make it not under the thumb of Germany. How is that a valid metric. A puppet can have a lot of autonomy but end of the day still a puppet. I NEVER compared NDH and GNS as the same. I made a disclaimer saying they are NOT comparable. But their official titles is what I was getting at. I never removed NDH as a collaborator. Never did I say NDH was forced to mass murder Serbs! I wish I could speak to you verbally as I hate debating through text. Nuance is lost. One of my faults really. Hence my countless revisions. Also you too get into the details such as the naming conventions of NDH in infoboxes. We both share a passion for those cursed infoboxes. OyMosby (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I’m a bit OCD and what iffy. One of my many faults. I know I wrote a lot but please read what I wrote in whole so I know you know what I’m on about. I beg you. I already admitted that I know infboxes but a tiny little detail often not worried about. Yet when I made changes another editor undid me so clearly it is a bigger deal. And you reintroduced parsing as well which you claimed to be against. So clearly it is a significant enough part of WP to you and me. Even the WWII page I saw you had to deal with a long discussion of randomized generals in the infobox. It would have been a one minute job if my edit remained instead of this back and forth. So clearly the infobox is important to you aswell. Albania was a client state also yet isn’t listed separately but under either Italy or Germany who installed them. Makes no sense


Peacemaker, you said you were agains parsing out infoboxes yet you did just that and listed a faction of the Chetniks as a subordinate even though you said you don’t support separation of Chetniks from other collaborators. Chetniks collaborated with both allied and axis 1941-1943 as well. Some subordinates had more autonomy and violence than others. The Pecarina Chetniks were very violent on their own chosing yet you place them under Germany even though they worked with Italy as well. But as Tomasevich states, NDH would cease to exist without occupying German presence and ultimate had to answer to them in chain of command. In fear of minimizing NDH we are now maximizing and inflating the NDH’s separation from Germany. You are well aware of Tomasovich’s book so why this decision? This goes beyond the box, it’s a matter of being on the same understanding. One day you describe NDH as a state that was installed by Germany and Italy, would fail to exist without their military power and ultimately had to answer to Germany despite having the most autonomy of any occupied territory, next day you speak of them as their very own power. Chain of command goes to Germany.Who had their hands on NDH and final say. Regardless of the genocide Pavlic was eager to carry out. The gencoide Ustashe waged doesn’t make them a not a puppet or protectorate. Hell when you click on the NDH article the first lines state them as a puppet of Germany and Italy with many citations. So therefore should be listed under Germany at least. It seems straight forward. So I don’t get the blow back I am getting. Chetniks were not the same as the NDH as Chetniks were an group not reliant on Germany or Italy for existing.


All this back and forth seems unnecessary and I’m surprised you still see things differently. If notes are enough why parse other entities who have the same “axis puppet” notes?? AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING THEY WERE THE SAME THAT IS MY POINT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. And NDH was not the same As Italy or Germany either in status as even Tomasevich mentions German documents refering to NDH as occupied territory and the necessary “occupying” German armies needed to keep Pavlic and his government in running order or they would be overthrown. It’s this inconsistency that I see that irks me PeaceMaker. I don’t mean to be a pest but it just seems against RS. And it sets an example for all other related articles. As the infobox should reflect the article. As also I hope you weren’t insinuating that I am trying to minimize the NDH and Ustashe role in WWII. To me that would be insulting as both sides of my family fought again still the fascist, some losing their lives. So no interest in protecting the NDH legacy. But there are those (not you) looking to maximize NDH severity just like there are those who try to maximize GNS severity for modern day moral point scoring nationalist reasons. As you are familiar and had to deal with on WP. And you are right I should draft my entires. New ideas and better pheasing constantly pops into mind timte to time while on here. Sorry about that. OyMosby (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The Pećanac Chetniks operated only in German-occupied Serbia as legalised auxiliaries of the Germans, and at NO time operated with the Italians. He once asked the Italians if he could operate in Montenegro, but they rejected his request. I wrote the article and the one on him, so I should know. They were never a faction of DM's Chetniks at any time, they were rivals until he threw his lot in with the Germans and Nedić. It is critical that you know the facts about these things, which is why I intervened in that infobox. As far as the NDH is concerned, it was an Axis protectorate recognised by other Axis countries, capable of independent action, with its own foreign and domestic policies formed more or less independently (especially its domestic policies which basically caused the civil war), and it is my view that makes it significantly different from the puppet governments and auxiliaries/collaborationist factions that the Germans and Italians closely directed that it needs to stand alone in the infobox. In my view, this is entirely consistent with Tomasevich. Placing the NDH under Germany and Italy is just clutter in an infobox that should be as streamlined as possible, and whether it is your intention or not, appears to minimise the culpability of the Ustashas for what happened in occupied Yugoslavia during the war. I have no intention of reverting the infobox back to any of its former confused states, so if you don't like it and think you can muster a case for a change, please start a neutrally worded RfC on the talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, there wasn’t an RfC or consensus when a random IP parsed and created subcategories on the Yugoslav Partisans page where I see the same editor reverted me jus now even though you seemed okay with my edit there. As for our discussion about WwII in Yugoslavia, how would it minimize NDH’s role during WWII to have them under Germany when you yourself said they had control within their own borders not control outside their borders the way Italy and Hungary and Germany did? How is it minimizing and not in fact maximizing? So should we delete any mention of NDH being a Italian German puppet state or protectorate because it “minimizes culpability”???? What????? Tomasevich reveals that German documents deem NDH a subordinate occupied zone. Being a subordinate doesn't excuse Ustashe genocide. Fail to see the comparison. Also Italians worked with Chetniks in Italian occupied parts of NDH this is well known. But I’m pretty sure this happened before 1943 as well not just after. One more thing if we are to keep the boxes simple and not parse them out....why parse them out? And how are your recent edits in line with Tomasevich? Am I having a bad interpretation of his book in-front of me? I can open discussion on the talak pages but be prepared for Kreiger to complain about me

Doing so, heheOyMosby (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I have also edited the Yugoslav Partisans infobox along the same lines, getting rid of the contentious protectorates/puppet governments heading. If you don't see the yawning difference between the GNS (for example) and the NDH that I have explained, and the need to differentiate them, I can't help you. I have placed the NDH at the bottom of the list to show that they were a lesser power. As far as I am concerned, that is the correct way to present the NDH in the infobox. As I say, you can always start an RfC. And I shouldn't have to state it again, but the Pećanac Chetniks weren't a faction of the Chetniks, they were entirely separate, and didn't operate in the NDH at all or work alongside the Italians, ever. And the Italians surrendered in September 1943, so they didn't work with the DM Chetniks after that either. If you are going to make these edits, you should know this stuff. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
You keep making mention of NDH and GNS yet I keep telling you from the beginning I am not comparing the two as similar at all. I even noted that in bold above as Las Vegas neon signs aren’t an option on here. So totally irrelevant. I don’t even bring up GNS. I dont need help to know already what you are telling me. No need to repeat the obvious. I am for separating them under germany. One puppet government the other puppet state/quasai protectorate. People should know. Not censor out of fear someone will assume they were both helpless slave states. Come on now Peacemaker.... In Tomasevich’s book he discusses the Italians working with Chetniks in occupied parts of NDH. I’m surprised you don’t know this. Pavlic was angered when he found out about it. You still have yet to explain how it is minimizing to put NDH under Germany in the infoboxes, Hitler who installed the NDH, put Pavelic and the Ustashe and power and provided German military support to secure that power. The existing government in Zagreb of the Banat of Croatia prior to invasions did’t join the axis powers even rejected. They were kicked out. Ir doesn’t take away from the genocide Pavelic carried out inside the territory on his own wishes. The infobox doesn't talk about genocide so I dont see what is being minimized. We aren’t here to be social justice editors and gage organizing by level of evil. We should go by classification by the RS. Again shall we delet the little “a” not denoting NDH as a puppet regime because that is also minimizing? On the NDH article should we censor that they were an Italian German installed puppet state as that minimizes guilt on the Ustashe? Ridiculous and surprising to read. I know very well about the subject and the info behind my edits. Thank you very much. Hence why I feel strongly about it. I can provide page numbers if you like. Also, I made edits concerning NDH. I wasn’t moving around Chetniks. Not sure what edit specifically you are talking about. Also side note. 1944 onwards, Hungary should be under Germany as well as they were fully occupied and became a client state as well. Thats another discussion perhaps. And again, if you are for simplified unparaed boxes, why do the opposite then? OyMosby (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
All I'm getting from this is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is nothing in Tomasevich that says the NDH was comparable to the GNS, which is what you are proposing by placing them both under Germany. But first things first. You said above that the Pećanac Chetniks worked with the Italians, I quote, "The Pecarina Chetniks were very violent on their own chosing yet you place them under Germany even though they worked with Italy as well." They just didn't, they only ever worked for the Germans. If you know the subject area so well, provide me with a citation for the "fact" that they worked with the Italians. I'll wait. Of course the DM Chetniks worked with the Italians, I've never said they didn't, they worked for the Italians, the Germans, the GNS, and substantially for themselves. It is the latter reason they are listed separately rather than under the Germans and Italians. I am saying that putting the GNS and the NDH under Germany (and Italy) minimises the NDH as just doing the Germans bidding just like the GNS. They aren't comparable, and by putting them there you are making them comparable whether you like it or not. The point about Hungary should be discussed separately, as it is complex. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Never said that in Tomasevich that he says the NDH was comparable to the GNS. I’m not even the one bringing up GNS so I really don’t know what else to say there does seem to be a bit of WP IDONTLIKE HERE. But not from my end. I mispoke as I meant Chetniks in general, not Pecarina specifically. However that was a number of responses ago as I since the corrected myself stating “ Come on now Peacemaker.... In Tomasevich’s book he discusses the Italians working with Chetniks in occupied parts of NDH. I’m surprised you don’t know this.” Now now Peacemaker, read carefully I said I can provide citations and page numbers that back my edits which were dealing with NDH classification in the infobox specifically. I was bringing up Chetniks as in why are they being put under Germany but those who worked with Italy not under italy? Why go at me for mispeaking if later I correct myself saying Chetniks in general? Again Chetniks are not listed under Italy or the faction of them that did work with Italy. And yes Chetniks as an entity had fingers in multiple pies, and I think that should be represented under all those they worked with, placing both NDK and GNC does equate them anmore than puting NDH and Bulgaria and Germany in the same grouop. Kinda a double standard isn’t it? Again, I don’t think I am practicing “IDONTLIKEIT” as I’m going by classifications not personal views of “ well it might make them look equal”. I was told That kind of opinionated thinking is irrelevant on the Axis powers page. NDH and GNS were reporting to Germany at top chain of command. GNS directly controlled, NDH far more autonomy but still had to listen to daddy Hitler. Irrelevant how far apart the two are. Classification should trump all emotions or opinions. No point continuing this conversation here. I can provide the pages from Tomasevich on how he classified NDH if you like and how they relate to German and Italy and how the totem pole is organized by him. If you’d like. Just give me a bit to het the book. Just because both GNS and NDH were installed by Germany doesnmean they were the same. Why didn’t you have this concern on the Axis page were Tripartite signers were chosen as the standard for the box and NDH was put in the same list as Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria??? They were not so equal were they? They were not all the same in power, influence and autonomy. Why is that important now suddenly? Like I said I am fine with headlines saying Puppet regime or Puppet government to denote differences if you feel that is an issue. As I was for this on the Axis Powers page infobox where you weren’t so worried about how all the puppets would be mixed with non-puppets. Otherwise it is double standards and not I who practicing WP IDONTLIKE HERE. I still respect your disagreement. But don’t associate me ever with trying to equalize NDH and GNS again like I’m some Croatian nationalist chauvinist. I made it too clear for you to get confused about that, PM. You’ve known me for a while now. OyMosby (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I apologize

I sometimes ramble and get foot in mouth and over obsess. So sorry about that. Hope I didn’t get you too annoyed. I obsess sometimes. I will creat a properly proofread post on relevant talk pages. And sorry for my sarcasm (I’m 6% French) and had a shit week specifically and shit few months. Not your fault to deal with. I know Pacanac were not with the Italians. I misspoke. Sorry for the word salad and revisions. I owe you a beer if I’m ever in Aussie land. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed MILHIST drive

Well, awhile back, you offered to take a look at a page for a proposed MILHIST drive if I put one together. Given some discussion with CPA-5, I've written the drive page to be kinda an overall reviewing drive: for MILHIST articles at A-Class, GAN, FAC, and the project assessment page. The draft is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History/March 2021 Reviewing Drive. I know for sure there's some things wrong, especially with the arbitrary points values I slung around making it nigh impossible to achieve most of the barnstars, and maybe it's so bad you just need to use your admin bit to make this go away forever, but there's a try. I judged the rough consensus growing at the coordinator talk page that running it in lieu of March Madness seems like an okay idea, given that the bot has reduced a lot of the need for tagging and such. If you don't think it's a hecking disaster, I'll post this at the coordinator talk page for additional feedback/comments on how I screwed it up. Hog Farm Bacon 04:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Completed basic move work on Maine regiments. What about Tennessee?

Could you look at my CSD log and delete the tagged items for Oct? Thanks. I ran into a snag in Tennessee. To avoid untimely discussion I chose not to pursue this until the coordinator elections were over. The issue is that most Confederate units have the basic naming form (Xnumber Tennessee Xbranch Xunit) with no Confederacy disambiguator, whereas some Union units from the state already have the Union disambiguator. Since Tennessee seceded, I'm inclined to leave the Confederate units without and to add the disambiguator for all Union units in Tennessee only. I was wondering how @Hog Farm: and @Hhfjbaker: felt about it. Opinions? BusterD (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that the disambiguation is only needed for instances where there were both Union and Confederate regiments with the same designation. For instance, there was no 47th Tennessee Infantry Regiment on the Union side, so there doesn't need to be a disambiguation at that title, since it is not ambiguous. But for other ones, like the 1st Tennessee Infantry Regiment, it'll need 1st Tennessee Infantry Regiment (Union) and 1st Tennessee Infantry Regiment (Confederate). So generally the disambiguator is only needed when there was one of each with the same name on either army. This makes for some fun hatnotes sometimes, when one side changed designations a lot, like the Missouri CSA units did. Hog Farm Bacon 16:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Keeping both the goal of more precision and more common usage balanced, I think I agree with Hog Farm. Adding the disambiguator is necessary when there was a regiment of the same name in both armies.Hhfjbaker (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that parenthetical disambiguation is only needed where there was a regiment with the same ordinal from the same state on both sides. There may be minor exceptions, but I think that is the case for almost all infantry and artillery regiments. I'm pretty sure that was what was agreed on the Milhist talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Zagreb

I had a look and am hoping to review it, but I noticed there was no picture, and via this page found this and this. You probably already know about them, but I thought I'd check -- no chance of getting permission on either of them, is there? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mike, that’d be great! I can’t see a way to use them unfortunately, as we need a prior publication. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

User:JFBlackmon/sandbox

Hello,

I'm currently writing an article on Jimmy Blackmon, a former Colonel in the US Army. I stumbled upon the Military biographies page and wanted to get your input on whether or not I should include the Military tags, Biography-task-force=yes or Biography=y, against this page so that the peers within this group can locate the page more effectively. I'm still acquiring some of the content and working through image use permissions, but I'm ~3/4 of the way along before I create the official page and migrate the information over. Any insight is much appreciated.

Regards, Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFBlackmon (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

G'day, the first thing to be aware of is that Blackmon may not be notable, have a look at WP:SOLDIER, which outlines soldiers that tend to be notable. Regardless of that, if he meets the WP:GNG he could have an article anyway. Make sure you are not relying on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES or sources too close to the subject, as they will not count for much if someone sends the article to WP:AFD to get a community view on notability. To be robust it will need to be sourced to reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, with citations/footnotes for all material in the article. As far as the Milhist banner is concerned, generally you would add |Biography=y, |US=y, and |Post-Cold-War=y. A word of caution though, the current style of the draft is promotional and flowery, have a look at Featured biographies of similarly-ranked soldiers like Maurice Wilder-Neligan for a guide on style. Finally, do you have any connection to Blackmon? You should be aware of WP:PAID and WP:CONFLICT. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Bill Kibby, in a "series on South Australian service personnel awarded the Victoria and George Crosses. He performed three separate actions during the prolonged Second Battle of El Alamein of the WWII North African campaign, the last of which cost him his life"! - See my talk today for Bruder Martin in my series on reformation (a work in progress) and treats (apples, pumpkins, popcorn). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Getting Started MilHist Help

G’day Peacemaker. I’m a bit unsure on how to begin helping in the project. Any tips on getting started? Cheers.OyMosby (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I suggest having a look at the B-Class criteria at WP:MH/B? and try assessing articles listed at WP:MHAR. Another thing is to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks#TASKS. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks I’ll check it out. Cheers!. OyMosby (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Christ the backlog is gigantic! OyMosby (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
It’s far smaller now thanks to Milhistbot. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I cannot imagine how big it was before Milhistbot.....OyMosby (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The backlogs list mainly Talk pages not the articles themselves. Is this by accident of the bot?OyMosby (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
It is intentional, because that is where the assessment/taskforce adding etc activity is needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh ok. Well look forward to helping anyway I can. If there are any articles you yourself have in mind that need looking, please do let me know!OyMosby (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Help! GA Reviewer passing too many articles to GA or something...

Please take a look at Talk:Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold/GA2 done in less than 30 minutes and also Talk:Systime Computers/GA2 done in less than ten and Talk:Brodie Lee/GA1 done in 11 minutes and Talk:Jonathan Scott (television personality)/GA1, also done in 11 minutes and so on. What can be done? Help! Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I posted on TheEpicGhosty's user talk about this issue and also posted a query on Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. The editor hasn't edited since I posted on their user talk, I did ping them to the GA Reassessment page. Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations at Recent flurry of GA Reviews and Noms that seem somewhat hurried..., I pinged some admins to that talk page and Eddie891 answered the call. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Quick edit input

Hi Peacemaker. Could you take a quick peak at my edits for the Hungary section of the Axis Powers as a second pair of eyes given you knowledge on WWII? I went by RS used in related articles to topics in the section. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

In general it looks ok, but it needs more citations to ensure it is verifiable. Editors are completely justified in deleting uncited material, particularly if controversial or contested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I made sure to add citations for parts I added to. I agree with you on the other talk page that perhaps the Axis Powers page may be getting too detailed in general. Was not aware it was 2.5 times bigger than average articles. Thanks for taking a gander PM. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Message

Hi mate, I read your message in my talk, but honestly I think you are contradictory or politically oriented because no reason for removal of reliable sources inserted by me. Anyway I will make interventions in related discussion about Broz Tito and invite you to collaborate with me and other guys who are honest friends of wikipedia. Regarding expression planned economy, I inform yourself: dictator Broz Tito was a faithful servant of Stalin and wanted the same planned economy as the Soviet one; and when the political situation changed, after break against Stalin, Yugoslavia always remained a communist economy.--Forza bruta (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Tito hated Stalin. That was the impression I was always under. Where did you read he was “faithful servant”??? Tito is rolling in his grave....OyMosby (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
This stuff is just nonsense. Read some actual biographies of Tito and get some facts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: Basil Charles Elwell French Article

It doesn't say anything about military in his article. Should it be military on his talkpage? Adamdaley (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually it says he was a chaplain to the Rhodesian armed forces. It is a bit marginal though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Should it be considered as military in WP:Biography? Adamdaley (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd check with them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

Can you explain this reversion on the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APlanespotterA320&type=revision&diff=988466707&oldid=988465605 on the talk page of PlanespotterA320? It was a polite reminder about community sanctions in place. If it remains deleted, I think I would need to more formally add a DS alert to the page or consult an admin. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, editing on the phone and my sausage fingers must have hit the wrong blue bit. Rolled myself back. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)<

Bibliography

Hey, PM - hope you're well. I was wondering if Jovan Ćulibrk comes up in your bibliography about the Yugoslav Wars era and its aftermath.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No, not in my main area of interest I'm afraid. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad faith?

Will you be doing anything about that or is it good faith to accuse someone of bad faith because they failed a GA review? Goodbye. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your initiation of the GAR, including throwing of non-specific grenades about the article without providing specific examples of deficiencies, and then withdrawal as soon as people start disagreeing with you is hopeless. Given you have withdrawn, the GAR should be closed. It is critical when initiating a GAR that you provide specific examples of issues with the article that mean that it doesn't meet the criteria, and stick to talking about content, not contributors. Your completely unjustified accusation of socking just ran the entire thing off the rails. I'm going to close it myself shortly if you don't close it yourself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of Changes to Battle of Yongyu

Have copypasted this to the article talk. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To: Peacemaker67, Mztourist, and AustralianRupert Sirs:

It seems that your word count requirement, which I believe was the basis for Peacemaker67’s reverting the Battle of Yongyu article to Illegitimate Barrister’s earlier version, has resulted in an error-plagued article. This reversion was not proofread or error-checked before it was published. I don’t know its source, but it is a near-verbatim copy of the Battle of Yongju|Military Wiki| Fandom web page article. Who is the plagiarist here?

A casual perusal of this reversion found the following discrepancies:

a. There are still 15 incorrect references to “Yongju” in the latest revision as of 05:00, 12 November 2020. Refer to my Yongyu Versus Yongju entry on the Talk:Battle of Yongyu Page. b. GPS coordinates are in error. 39°18’17.9”N 125°35’59.02”E is the correct LAT/LONG for Yongyu, North Korea. c. Refer to Lead para. 1 line 1. The United Nations Command (UNC) is not the same as the United Nations (UN). The UNC was the multinational military force that supported South Korea during the Korean War. The UN is an intergovernmental organization. d. Refer to Lead para. 1 line 3. “US” is used twice. e. Refer to Lead para. 1 line 4. “capital Pyongyang” should be “North Korean capital at Pyongyang.” f. Refer to Battle|187th RCT airdrop at Sukchon and Sunchon, 20–21 October 1950. In para. 2 line 1, Songnani-ni is Songnam-ni. In para. 2 line 2, Chany-ni is Chang-ni. A simple cross-check of the Google Earth Map Set KMZ Files found on the Korean War Project website allowed me to catch this error during one of my earlier revisions, which is now deleted. I suspect a copy-paste OCR error in the reverted article.

There are too many other errors to list in this forum, but you get the idea.

Please enlighten me on how using “subsequently” 44 times in the reverted article qualifies this as a Good Article?

As far as Peacemaker67’s reference to the insertion of geographical coordinates into the text is concerned, Temple’s map of the Airborne Attack on Sukch’on and Sunch’on in the Battle section is too small to locate terrain features, even when enlarged. In retrospect, there may be some unnecessary GPS coordinates (Hong Kong, for example), but GPS links to the features in Google Map’s satellite and terrain views in the absence of detailed topographical maps were most helpful to my research.

Your removal of the US 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team’s war diary entries contained in the US Army Command and General Staff College’s Combat Studies Institute Battlebook on the Battle of Sukchon-Sunchon and the Kirland/Pears Korea Remembered references on the Battle of the Apple Orchard that contains Australian Maj. Gen. (Ret) David Matheson Butler’s recollections of the battle when he was the 3 Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment’s 9 Platoon C Company commander detracts from the detail of the battle.

I found the original Wikipedia article during my study of Roy Appleman’s description of the US 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team’s operations at Sukchon and Sunchon in his book, South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu: United States Army in the Korean War: June – November 1950. Google Search returned the Battle of Yongju, which resulted in my original 18 September Talk:Battle of Yongyu Page entry.

This was my first major Wikipedia article revision (and thanks to you, it will probably be my last) so I expect critiques, not wholesale deletions. Examination of my User talk:Charles Shaulis page shows that I was allowed to correct errors that Users Dianaa and Renata caught. In my opinion, your subjective criticisms should have been accompanied by objective recommendations before you wiped out two months of my work. Although I found multiple issues with the original Battle of Yongju article on 18 September, I did not delete anything of substance. My good faith revisions and additions to the article may have been wordy, but they were factually correct, well documented, backed up by citation, and properly written/punctuated.

I believe that 40 years of US military and federal government experience in technical writing, more than a passing knowledge of Korean War military history from an American perspective, as well as having a father (deceased) who as a 24-year-old USAF 1st Lieutenant flew a C-119 that dropped US paratroopers over DZ WILLIAM on 20 October, allow me to write this.

So, what’ll it be? Word count or an informative description of the battle?

Charles Shaulis (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Charles Shaulis Topsham, Maine

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your GA nomination of Charles Green (Australian soldier)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles Green (Australian soldier) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 6, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 6, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, the fact all these Yugoslav army units only fought in the April War makes it hard to shoehorn them all into April, so I'm happy to see them get a run whenever. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

List of genocides by death toll

There seems to be a dispute there on whether the crimes committed by Chetniks should be included or not [12]. You could probably help those involved editors, since you have experience with such stuff. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tito-Stalin split

Hi there! Long time no type. I was wondering if you could help me decide if Tito–Stalin split article belongs to Milhist or not. Off the bat, I thought it does not, but then I noticed The Great Game is within the project scope... so, I'm lost. Regards Tomobe03 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day Tomobe03, I think the incursions and Yugoslav deaths plus the coup plotting gets it over the line. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the mega edits

Sorry for the re-edits of my comments on talk pages. I’m a bit obsessive compulsive and end up restructuring or refining my edits again and again when I think of a better possible way of explaining. A bad characteristic of mine that frustrates those trying to respond, I know. As you complained about me doing so before.... again apologiesOyMosby (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Yugo History map of invasion 7th Army.jpg

File:Yugo History map of invasion 7th Army.jpg

I did a color correction on this file? Did I go too far? What do you think? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Coffeeandcrumbs, thanks for your efforts, but I think it is too dark, makes it harder to read the markings rather than easier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charles Green (Australian soldier)

The article Charles Green (Australian soldier) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charles Green (Australian soldier) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

URFA

Thanks for the help !! I've asked the person who wrote the script to run through WP:URFA/2020 and delete the column that has the latest FAC/FAR link, because the page is just too huge and impossible to edit. Waiting to see if they can do that, which will leave us more room for comments. But maybe you can reduce the size of your comments by just adding the diff to people you've contacted, followed by your sig. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, thinking in terms of standardization for sorting that colums ... I have used the terms "noticed", "At FAR", and "Satisfactory" ... maybe you can just put "Notified" followed by a diff ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, wasn't really sure what was preferred there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Still trying to figure it out, but had not counted on the hugeness of the file! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, very laggy on my iMac. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
OK, how is it now? I put some instructions at the top for keeping comments brief and some ideas for moving articles off the list. (Which meant removing some of your sig files, as those can chunk up the already huge page.) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Better now. I'll use that model from now on. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything here that needs to be noticed? If so, we should put that on talk and include the diff at URFA; Cla ain't comin' back to Wikipedia, so that comment won't help us move forward. Does the article have issues, or can we we pass it to "Satisfactory"? If it has issues, we need to list them on talk. Sure do miss Cla :( Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I've decided to start a thread on Milhist about the project articles that are on this list and don't have an active principal editor, so you can delete it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
OK ... but it looked OK to me ... are there deficiencies? I want to get the page off on the right foot, so we don't have people filling it with random commentary that doesn't head us towards yea or nay on FAR. Those that have no deficiencies can be moved off the list if several editors agree ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The key issues with most of the Milhist ones with no active principal editor I've looked at so far is a few missing citations and some questionable prose, but they really need someone to look at recent scholarship as well. That is why I am listing them at Milhist, to get a range of views. When I have a consensus on whether there are real problems with one, I'll note it on the WP:URFA/2020 page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Keep in mind not to be too strict ... we don’t need to defeature a ton of articles over a sentence or two here and there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, because that page is so huge, be sure to mention the real deficiencies on article talk, with just a diff back to URFA ... trying to keep the page manageable. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the weirdness at Bill Denny; sometimes my back hurts so bad (leftover damage from a big tree falling on me while I was relaxing in a hammock), that all I can do is browse from my iPad on the sofa, and I'm all thumbs on the iPad. I thought I would just browse through all of the articles that you had just listed at URFA, so I could mark them "Satisfactory" later from my desktop, when I hit the harv ref weirdness. I am still learning harv refs (always hated them), and could not remember the ref=none trick. But even odder, I believe the script that I have installed to check for harv ref errors is flagging errors any time it doesn't like the section heading (non-standard per WP:LAYOUT) as that is the second time that doing something like this make the errors go away (along with your ref=none on the Bibiliography). That seems a bit like the script overstepping its boundaries, but I've learned to avoid certain editors who maintain the citation bots and scripts, so ... well, it's all solved now and I can get back to looking at your articles to mark them off the list. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Military Assault Weapon article or section?

Hello,

Please see what I put at: Talk:Assault_weapon#Military_Assault_Weapon_section.

I lean toward a separate article over a separate section. The brief is something I wrote else where.

Any thoughts on this?

Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I have responded there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Re:USS Missouri (BB-63)

Actually, a closer look shows all Iowa class battleships save but for Kentucky are on that list. I'm thinking A word in the Bugle wold be useful to alert editors that these articles need a look see and as a coordinator I'm wondering if this may be a good subject to build a march madness campaign around - specifically to get everything done between now and March. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tom, if you could have a look at them all and let us know they are ok, that would be great. If you can't do that, please let me know? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I took a preliminary look under the hood today using {{pagelinks|}} and {{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=}}, and thankfully Missouri's is good shape for the most part, a good 95% or so of the links and other FA-relevent material is still present and accounted for. Alt text needs help, and according to the checker I have one link resolved as being DOA, but on the whole this is still a featured article - at least as far as the toolboxes are concerned. I'll take a look at the others as times permits and let you know what I find. In the mean time, as a stop gap measure, I posted a notice concerning the list on the milhist announcements template in hopes that our contribution corps will see it and take some action. Happy Thanksgiving! TomStar81 (Talk) 12:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I completed a auto assessment and the vast majority of these articles are still 95% or better good to go, we have lost a few links and three or four need a major alt text addition, otherwise all is good - from a strictly toolbox perspective. The articles still need a manual read through to make sure that everything present is A)cited, B) consistent with known information, and most importantly C) in line with the context (she/her, port/starboard, bow/stern, etc as opposed to a mix bag of the common and nautical). Strictly speaking, they could be removed at no loss to the list, but for now I'd settle on letting the people know they still meet toolbox requirements for FA-stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I might do a sneaky c/e and see what I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: American Revolutionary War

As things seem to be evolving anonymously at the History Project generally, I thought you might be constrained from making a forthright response to my post at the status-request page. Here it is again, expanded somewhat for you away from the project panel,

I mean to address this to you as a friend, a more experience editor with a sympathetic ear, and that is based on our previous exchanges:

The 5-item criterial are met. This is a quick turnover for B-status; there is no rationale to delay. One editor a while back anachronistically ruminated about the ARW "insurrection" (Encycl.Brit.) Infobox should be that of a great power (1700s Austria), before the US got its first "Articles" passed. But that is not germane to determining whether the article meets the 5-item criteria for B-status.

This last week, I salvaged several Military history project articles with a project Good Article-status such as the Battle of the Chesapeake, as it did not meet the B-1 standard for citations that is met at American Revolutionary War, anonymously reduced here from C-class to Start-class.

Have I missed something in the published 5-item criteria regarding the Infobox? It may be that Euro sources do not agree with 12 American scholars winning Pulitzer prizes on the topic, but,

But is that really a determinative criteria listed anywhere publicly? Sourcing for an article of American military history is to be secretly deprecated for the existence of some alternative sourcing in European diplomatic history? Military, naval historians Am:Mahan 1890 and Brit:Styrett 1998 both agree, all wars against Britain in the late 1700s were not subsidiary engagements derivative the American Revolutionary War for colonial independence and republican government, especially among British engagements at sea, away from North America, with the Bourbons.
It is said elsewhere in another context, that if there a national interest in an article, then the English dialect for the article should be the same as the topic. Is there any consideration like that extended for weighing the predominant scholarship surveyed in the article, if other RS are accounted for in the article main-space? In this case there seems to be an alignment between American and British naval history scholars, versus British military and European diplomatic histories.
Are these source variables determinative in meeting the publicly stated 5-criteria for B-class status? Where is that mentioned?

Is this just a continuation of the earlier pro-land, anti-sea bias in an earlier Military Project assessment for the Naval Bombardment of Cherbourg? It failed GA review when I first wrote it before my WWII vet, destroyer sailor father died, because there was (a) too much about destroyer supporting fires "powdering" (Army source) pillboxes that divisional artillery could not penetrate (coordinates relayed from forward artillery observer to on-station aircraft spotter to ship off-shore), and (b) not enough about infantry medal of honor winners? - Yes, those were the two rationales for denial at the time.

- If that bias is standing Project policy, secretly held, and anonymously applied, I am not sure how to proceed, as all American history, ARW included, is predominantly that of a seafaring and sea-trading nation, whose existence is maintained primarily by sea power.

Is the blind eye, unspoken reservations, and anonymous assessment for the improved AWR article that meets the published 5-criteria for B-status, all proper Wikipedia Project procedure? Is there a link to that policy you can share with me, before I launch off into another Military Project forum, and leave you alone for now? Thanks in advance for any leads or council. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You really need to have this conversation on the ARW talk page with a neutrally-worded RfC. I lack the knowledge of the topic to make a useful contribution. If you'd like to run the wording of a RfC past me for advice I'd be happy to help. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean the conversation about the key scope issue you are concerned about. Also, WP:MHA is not suited to extended discussions of an assessment, any further discussion after an assessment has been done belongs on the talk page of the article in question. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll respond to your kind offer to critique RfC language in a new section.
Is an "assessment completed" without a reason cited, no linked reference for further editor information, no review editor named for attribution, and no notice to the page editors either at the article Talk or at the Project assessment page? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you provide diff to this "assessment completed"? I am having a lot of trouble following you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hah! a gentle reminder to the old school teacher to do his homework. Thank you.
  • On August 11 “Rated C-Class” here.
  • August 16 "Dthomsen8" Rated B-Class. here – Summary: (Assessment (B): banner shell, Military history, +United States History (Low), −United States history (Rater) . {{WikiProject Military history |class=B |B1 <!-- Referencing and citations -->=no |B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy -->=yes |B3 <!-- Structure -->=yes |B4 <!-- Grammar and style -->=yes |B5 <!-- Supporting materials -->=yes |A-Class=fail |ARW=yes |US=yes |British=yes |French=yes |Dutch=yes |Spanish=y |Early-Modern=yes}}
- Note: Because the assessment at B1 ‘referencing and citations’ =no, the HarvRef errors showing at that time have all been reconciled, with almost all provided live urls, other improvements as cited at Project assessment request page -- hence the second request for B-class assessment, now a month-and-a-half pending after meeting all 5 published categories.
  • On August 31 "Robinvp11" - Reads: WikiProject Military history show(Rated Start-Class), here – Summary: “C rated by the Milhist Project for reasons discussed in agonising detail” {{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=n|b5=y|A-Class=fail|British=y|Dutch=y|French=y|Spanish=y|US=y|Early-Modern=y|ARW=y}}
Note: The ‘discussed in agonizing detail’ was Robin’s assertion that the Encyclopedia Britannica ARW “insurrection” could not have an Infobox with "Combatants" as does the Spanish Civil War, but it was required by the Military Project to use the great power Infobox for Austria in the War of Austrian Succession without "Combatants", with nation-state "Belligerents" only. This before the US Congress had its first “Articles” constitution in 1781, the year of Yorktown, collecting less than half the assessed "requisitions" on its member states,
- i.e. not a world great power of 1775-1783 by scholarly standards for an American military history article, with a Preliminary Peace November 1782 declared "end of hostilities" with Britain, ratified by Congress April 1783, all its armies furloughed home, and its navy given away or sold to cover war debt. Despite disruptions to effect a fringe POV for over eight months at the ARW pages, Congress and its ARW for national independence in a North American republic is not a significant participant in the "Final (Great) Assault" at Gibraltar September 1782, not to be featured prominently, nor at all, in the ARW American military history article, because the famous British military victory did not compel their diplomatic concession to American independence at the Paris peace talks, imho. Britons in their Parliament required American independence as of the April 1782 succession of Whig Opposition Lord Rockingham to Prime Minister.
  • On September 1 “Rated Start-Class” here.
– In any case, regardless, a one-off quibble about an arcane Infobox concern over taxonomy is NOT one of the 5-criteria for B-status published at the Military History Project. At the Infobox, the offending entities engaged in combat during the ARW are labelled 'combatants', they are not misrepresented as nation-state 'belligerents'. So I would like a reconsideration of the article for a B-Status Review by someone who does not code “A-Class=fail” to show (a) the ARW article as Military History Project “Start Class” on the Talk page, and (b) “Start Class” at the “Pageviews” chart found at ARW/View history, when seven (7) other WP Projects rate the article B-Status.
- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Peacemaker67. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.BunbunYU (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Help me help you?

Let me know of any NON-BALKAN articles I can help you with. Going to MilHist is a bit overwhelming so any article you specifically need me to find sources, images, or other resources please let me know. I want to contribute more to Wikipedia in content. No just be a policeman..... OyMosby (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I know you have a lot on your plate so I’d like to help you. You’ve sorta been a mentor on Wikipedia for me, and I appreciate that. OyMosby (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me to MilHist. I'll be of help to you in any articles concerning Bangladesh Liberation War and the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Do let me know if any task force comes up on MilHist concerning Bangladesh Liberation War, I'll be happy to help. Starsign1971 (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for 1st Cavalry Division (Kingdom of Yugoslavia), "about a Yugoslav formation that fought briefly during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941"! - Music on my talk, even got the kiss of justice and peace from the drawers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Great to hear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Tomasovich pg 63 Fifth Column

Peacemaker67, which book of his did you say was the talks of a fifth column? You said 63, but I only have access to his book “War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941-1945” did you mean “The Chetniks” his other book? Thanks OyMosby (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Also reading 63 in the former, JT states that NDH was divided into German and Italian Zones of “occupation”. Is he saying NDH was an occupied state? This gets technical and confusing... OyMosby (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
His 1975 book. And yes, the NDH was effectively occupied, JT describes it as an Axis quasi-protectorate. That doesn't mean it didn't have considerable freedom of action though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh of course. Germans didn’t tell Pavlic to wage a genocide, they wanted him to stop actually. Thats on him and the Ustashe. Though I wonder if Germans withdrew would he still be in power. How much support amongst the Croats did he have for his horrid crimes. Anyway....My main point was page 63, do you know of any way I can access the 1975 book so I can read it online? I already own the 2001 “War and Revolution in Yugoslavia”. It would be much appreciated. Tomasevich is kinda my favorite historian. He writes straight to the point. No drama or downplaying or uplaying. A trustworthy source. If you know of any pdf online it would be much appreciated. Also was there ever a book written about Ante Pavlic? To understand why he had such a violent hatred in him. I could never understand what happened in his upbringing to become such a demon. Sorry for all the questions. You always seem like the man with all the sources and knowledge. Thanks, OyMosby (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Here JT is talking about the fifth column within Yugoslavia in general terms of the weakness of the country in being prepared for war, not specifically about the causes of the collapse in retrospect. After talking about the weaknesses of the army in terms of manpower, weapons, transport, supplies, political and military leadership and their short-sighted Serb-centric policies, and lack of unity among the people of the country, he says, "Fifth-column activity was seen as a real danger, owing to the dissatisfaction of various South Slav nations and national minorities, especially the Volksdeutsche in Vojvodina, but few steps had been taken to deal with it. Although the leadership of the Croatian extremist organisation Ustasha and three three to four hundred of its most ardent followers were in exile, they had perhaps several times that number of sworn members and several tens of thousands of sympathisers in the country at the beginning of 1941, and were sure to get more should Yugoslavia get involved in war. There were also potential fifth columns among the pro-Bulgarian Macedonian population and the Albanian population in the Kosovo area." He finishes off on p. 64 with an observation that training in the armed services was also outmoded and poor. Hope that helps your understanding. I will try to dig up some more material about the actual activities of the fifth column during the April War and address this issue in the article in the next few days, but I am pretty busy atm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks yeah I was trying to read up on all that on my own as there is one editor on that talk page that insists on going with Serbian Historiography in the intro ignoring all other sources. Then another editor came in saying there was not fifth column activity by Hungarians of which I agree I have no idea of sources saying so. I appreciate you fixing it up. The theories in general may be better off out of not in the intro but I’ll leave it to you.
Also question, do you think I went to far in expanded info on Starcevic [HERE]? As later in his career he did back down his extremist views (though too late as Ustashe grasped onto his older works on racist ideology) and also the origins of his racist theories stemming from Greek philosophers he read into. Seems odd to just leave that context out. If you get a chance please take a look. It’s cited just like in his article. Seems weird I was reverted. Honestly the Genocide of Serbs article does indeed need to be rewritten. I agree with you on the undue photo of Aloysius Stepinac as he was a complicated figure. Cowardly but also saved some people too when he had the chance. He didn’t have the balls to command the Croatian Church to cast away Pavlic however. But felt killling the innocent was wrong. OyMosby (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I’m a bit slow on the uptake for the next week or so, I had to have emergency surgery today and have been in hospital since Saturday morning my time. Re: Hungarian fifth column, the main details of that (if it was an issue, will be in Terzić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
No need to apologize at all. Had no idea you were in hospital! Hope you have a speedy and safe recovery. Hungarians were removed as it was lacking sourcing but I see there is a source. I I was tested positive for Covid-19 and feel like utter shit. Partly thanks to the USA government (“the greatest country in the world”). Health comes first, rest well. Hope it wasn’t anything too seriously. To Health, cheers! OyMosby (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you've got the covid. Hope you recover quickly and it isn't too bad a case. I had to have my gallbladder out. Excruciating pain when a gallstone gets stuck in the bile duct, got an ambulance ride out of it. All good now, back home recovering. I might take a look at Terzić and see what he says. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Fuck man, that makes my Covid feel like mild allergies in comparison. I cannot imagine the pain. Glad you are over the worst part I assume. Rest easy, Wikipedia can wait. Take could care and here to a speedy recover! Keep the wounds clean and all. Now I’m gonna be looking up gallbladders on Wikipedia and what they do precisely and how one goes on without them... hehe. Makes one think of the important things in life I guess. Without health what is there? Again to health, cheers! I still owe you a beer if I ever visit Oz. If this virus ever goes away. You be especially careful now. Recovery from such an invasive surgery can put you at higher risk with COVID. OyMosby (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rescue barnstar

The Article Rescue Barnstar
For helping to save Battle of Blenheim during featured article review - Dumelow (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Mate, you did the lion's share, but thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed RfC at ARW

This discussion is closed, not engaging any further on this topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed RfC language:

Shall the American Revolutionary War (ARW) article follow the editorial direction of

(a) an “American Revolutionary War” (Am-ARW), as a discrete historical event, in North America and the North Atlantic with its arms: Caribbean Sea, North Sea, Irish Sea, and English Channel; or that of

(b) a “Global-American Revolutionary War” (Global-ARW), that is comprehensively “the American Revolutionary War beginning at Lexington and Concord and spread worldwide”, a single historical event in many theaters of war that globally touch on five continents.

Here are the specifics, from the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Wars. "The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey":
  • #1 The name of the war: American Revolutionary War, or the War for American Independence
  • #2 When did it happen?
2a.1 Am-ARW. shooting war. Lexington and Concord (April 1775) until Yorktown (August 1781)
2a.2 Am-ARW. formally. Declaration of Independence (July 1776) until Anglo-Am Preliminary Treaty November 1782, Congress ratified April 1783), or Anglo-Am. Treaty of Paris (2 September 1783 in effect 3 September 1783)
2b.1 Global-ARW. shooting war. Lexington and Concord (April 1775) until Euro Armistice (April 1783) and Mangalore surrender to Tipu Sultan (January 1784)
2b.2 Global-ARW. formally. US Declaration of Independence (July 1776) until (i) (ii)Anglo-Bourbon Treaties of Versailles (3 September 1783), (iii) Anglo-Dutch Preliminary Treaty 2 September 1783) or Anglo-Dutch Treaty of Paris (May 1784), and (iv) Treaty of Mangalore (March 1784)
  • #3 Who fought in it?
3a Am-ARW. Those engaged in a British-subject insurrection, for or against US national independence in a republic.
3a.1 Am-ARW. US Congress, Britain, France in US alliance, Spain as US co-belligerent, Dutch Republic as US cobelligerent
3a.2 Am-ARW. Combatants with US Congress: State militias, Vermont, Canadian & Canadien regiments, Native Americans
3a.3 Am-ARW. Combatants with Britain: German auxiliaries, Loyalists, Native Americans.
3b. Global-ARW. Those engaged in all wars carried out against Britain by anybody, anywhere, for anything.
3b.1 Global-ARW. US Congress, France in US alliance, Spain as US co-belligerent, Dutch Republic as US cobelligerent
3b.2 Global-ARW. France and Spain allied war under third Pacte de Famille, Dutch in Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, Mysore in Second Anglo-Mysore War.
  • #4 Why did it happen?
4a. Am-ARW. Continental Congress of 13 colonies sought local self-government, then political independence.
4b. Global-ARW. The American colonial insurrection against Britain spread worldwide as additional actors made war on Britain: the great powers with overseas colonies: France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic. The casus belli for the American Revolutionary war came to be a definitive, humiliating defeat of British sea power and the expansion of Bourbon overseas imperial territory, with the declining Dutch Republic seeking free trade with the rebel Congress.
  • #5 What was the outcome?
5a. Am-ARW. US Congress war aims were met: independence, British evacuation, territory west to the Mississippi with navigation to the Gulf, Newfoundland fishing with curing rights.
5b. Global-ARW. US independence, Britain unconquered and sea power intact. British Gibraltar, Jamaica Bahamas, British East India. Spanish Minorca, East Florida, West Florida. French expanded Senegal Africa, and Tobago Caribbean. Dutch East Indies maintained in Ceylon & Negapatnam.
  • #6 What was its significance?
6a. Am-ARW. US Congress and British joint peace aims: an independent US with territory and international trade to be self-sufficient from military aid from Bourbon France and Spain in the future. Britain maintained trade with an independent US. Continuing Anglo-American financial ties allowed for London banks to underwrite Hamilton’s US Treasury to assume all US states war debt, retire French war loans, and pay down British and Loyalist war claims.
6b. Global-ARW. An independent US and the Second British Empire. France failed to overthrow British sea power, failed to re-establish American continental possessions. Spain failed to overthrow British sea power, failed to gain Gibraltar. Dutch Republic continued its decline.

Thanks for any advice you have for this RfC. Sincerely - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day TheVirginiaHistorian. An absolutely critical factor in getting a useful result from a RfC is that it is highly focussed, simple and clear, as well as neutrally-worded. Complex RfCs often fail as the discussion gets far too long, goes off on tangents, and becomes WP:TLDR, putting off potential participants. What is above is neutrally-worded, but the amount of cascading questions will almost certainly scupper a single RfC. What you have here is effectively six or seven separate RfCs. I strongly recommend that you start with the foundational question of what the title of the article should be, which should be followed by another RfC about which way the war should be presented on Wikipedia, as Am-ARW or Global-ARW as you have defined at (a) and (b). I have to say up front that a quick look at GoogleBooks Ngram says that despite a drop off in the 1970s to 1990s, American War of Independence is far more the common name of this conflict than American Revolutionary War. See [13], so I would expect that to be reflected in the outcome of the first RfC. Once you know the outcome of that, then go on with the subsequent RfCs, which may be easier. An effective RfC also provides links to a few high-quality academic sources that support all the options presented. For the first one, I suggest something like:

What should the title of this article be, American Revolutionary War[14][15][16] or American War of Independence[17][18][19]? Google Ngrams [20] indicates that over 60% of examples favoured American War of Independence over American Revolutionary War up to 2008 and while instances of American Revolutionary War have been steadily increasing, American War of Independence has remained steady since about 1990.

Something like that anyway. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Much good thought to sort through.
re: article title. Since before the onset of the internet, English had largely replaced French as the "lingua franca" (funny, that) in world commerce. Now if the Americans would only reciprocate and go metric for weights and measures (What would Benjamin Franklin do?", sigh). As both Japanese and Chinese learn the British dialect of English (and the Japanese drive on the left! side of the road),
- it is no surprise that a browser search for terms for the "American war for (a) national independence and (b) constitutional revolution into a republic", might result in more "Wars of Independence" than "Revolutionary Wars".
Nevertheless, at At National varieties of English, wp:TITLEVAR, it instructs, "If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English." And the Jimbo criteria at wp:due weight is (a) JIMBO: "RS scholarly [English-language] reference [for mainstream history]". ARW article: Encyclopedia Britannica “Revolutionary War American Revolutionary War”, "insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence” with (b) JIMBO: "prominent adherents".
- For the ARW article: At The Pulitzer Prizes], a search for “American Revolution” and “American War for Independence”, bring titles that use the phrasing, “American Revolutionary War” and “American Revolution” in their titles or in their narrative as the frame of reference for their readers:
1924 The American Revolution -- A Constitutional Interpretation, by Charles Howard McIlwain, 1930 The Founding of the American Republic, Volume II: The War of Independence: American Phase, by Claude H. Van Tyne, 1966 The Life of the Mind in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War, by Perry Miller, 1968 The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, by Bernard Bailyn, 1983 The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, by Robert L. Middlekauff, 1990 Finalist: The Image of the Black in Western Art, Volume IV: From the American Revolution to World War I, by Hugh Honour, 1993 The Radicalism of the American Revolution, by Gordon S. Wood, 1996 William Cooper's Town: Power and Persuasion on the Frontier of the Early American Republic, by Alan Taylor, 2001 Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, by Joseph J. Ellis, 2002 John Adams, by David McCullough, 2005 Washington's Crossing, by David Hackett Fischer, 2009 The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family, by Annette Gordon-Reed, 2015 An Empire on the Edge: How Britain Came to Fight America, by Nick Bunker, 2017 Finalist Brothers at Arms: American Independence and the Men of France and Spain Who Saved It, by Larrie D. Ferreiro, 2020 The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America, by Greg Grandin

.

The Pulitzer prize-winners in history that have been noted at Talk:ARW are unchallenged by any editor to date as RS related to the ARW article on war for a national independence with a republic in North America. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Re: title, that is all very well, but those arguments need to be ventilated in a community forum and decided by the community. It is foundational to have a firewalled article title before getting down in the weeds about the scope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay ... thanks ... response pending ... - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re RfC responses to date – day two

This discussion is closed, not engaging any further on this topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey:

(1) Thanks for the comment at the RfC on the American Revolutionary War. Four other editors have mentioned that there is too much packed into the RfC as presented.
- Conclusion: If participation is not more responsive over the next two weeks, say by December 20, I’ll circle back around to this some time in February after soliciting more input and guidance.
- imho, the scope for the article ARW needs to be clearly defined with a title that means that scope as sourced to (a) a scholarly reference source, and (b) with prominent adherents, like wp says, and no more, “precise scope”, wp says.
(2) One proven friend editor actually suggested I’m wp:bludgeoning!
- Conclusion: Until December 10, no more from me on the RfC, other than maybe updating new discussion points. -- wp:guidelines say, “pause”, so be it.
(3) The query is, “Which title to choose to define the scope of the article?” Easily half-a-dozen editors in the first two days replied essentially, “The name is the name.”
- Conclusion: They cannot ALL be wrong. I’ve misfired on my RfC composition here, clearly.
(4) One editor reported seeing no connection between the RfC as to choosing scope & title, but it was my intent that the discussion box provide the two titles and their respective scopes.
- Conclusion: Somehow the information in the boxes was not conveyed, not at all, in some cases.
(5) Two editors did get my drift, but to my amazement, he denied there was any difference between the two historiographies, “they are the same”, that is, in American historiography, siege Gibraltar = siege Yorktown, and port Savannah, Georgia = port Trincomalee, Ceylon - in their relative weights and importance to the American history of the Revolutionary War. – No joke.
- Conclusion: back to the drawing boards without a turnaround in the RfC responses by December 20.
Any further observations and suggestions you may have for the February trial run would be welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
This is why I suggested breaking it down into a series of concise and highly focused RfCs and running it past me or another experienced admin first. One of the things you personally need to try to avoid in general, especially in RfCs, is WP:TLDR commentary. If you feel you must provide it, put it in your sandbox and just post a link. Sadly, RfCs like the one you posted tend to drive editors away, and very rarely get a robust outcome for that reason. I also feel like your comments are really bludgeoning the process in your preferred direction, and many editors resent RfCs that are not presented in a strictly neutral way. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Bicocca

Hi Peacemaker67! I've finished my revisions to the Battle of Bicocca article; when you have a moment, can you please take a look and let me know if there's anything else that you think might be needed from an URFA standpoint? Thanks! Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day Kirill, will do shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kirill, it looks fine to me. I tweaked a couple of things and checked the images. Have marked it as satisfactory on the URFA table, you might like to add that you think it is ok as well, in the same way I have done with my FAs? Up to you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Kirill Lokshin please do add your satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020 if you are so inclined (your choice). I learned a new word in Spanish! Great to “see you” again, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've done that now. I'll do a quick review of Battle of Ceresole and Italian War of 1542–1546 next—those were originally written with the more modern referencing standards in mind, and shouldn't need much work—and then move on to cleaning up Italian War of 1521–1526. Thanks again for organizing all of this! Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
You're still the best! I will diff this update over to the URFA page, so hopefully no one submits a premature FAR. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Peter Badcoe scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Peter Badcoe article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 11, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 11, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. April is pretty busy with my TFA noms, so I'm happy for this to run on an unrelated date. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Old FAs

Hi, I see that you're posting reviews of old FAs. Would you mind doing the honours with a couple of 'mine' that I'm planning on updating over the Christmas break: Axis naval activity in Australian waters and Australian Defence Force? The former needs its referencing improved (which will likely involve removing some material where the references don't meet modern standards) and could do with a general spruce up. The later will likely be 2-3 years out of date given that's when I last did a full update. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day Nick, I'm generally doing these URFA checks focussing on the older Milhist ones first, so given the time since their promotion I'd be happy to take a look at both of these in the next little bit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. There's no rush whatsoever, as I'm not going to get up to them until Christmas. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I will also catch up over there as time allows (I am now behind by at least a dozen), but I am prioritizing the oldest first, so may not get to the 2012 onwards as quickly ... I don't think it's a bad thing if the relatively newer ones wait a bit for the third endorsement, since it's the un-endorsed-at-all (among the oldest) that editors will be scrutinizing for FAR. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

FA mentorship

I would like to try to push Bosnian genocide denial toward Featured Article or A status - I also think that you would be a perfect for mentoring me during the preps and the process of nomination. At this point article is of GA standing, and it is stable. However, one editor appeared with some objections few days ago, and, in my humble opinion, his arguments are pretty weak (not all but those regarding his main objections are), so I expect to resolve these issues with him rather sooner then later. So, as soon as that happens, would you accept to mentor me through this process? The good thing is that the very process of being nominated to FA or A status would further address all potential weaknesses, but with the likely participation of neutral (non-Balkan) editors.--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure. How about I start with a close look and see what I think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I didn't get the alert at all, I just now remembered to look out for your post - anyway, thanks, and certainly, everything you think is necessary and in your own time.--౪ Santa ౪99° 03:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
PM, how is your handling of the Serbo-Croatian?--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day Santasa99, looking at the level of discussion on the talk page about pretty fundamental things, I think this is far from stable and ready for a FAC. Those things need to be resolved by consensus on the talk page and implemented in the article. There are several things that jump out at me that need to be addressed:
  1. the definition of the subject of the article is not clear. Surely someone has defined it clearly?
  2. the lead is woefully inadequate as a summary of the article
  3. it needs a thorough source review to check for a) source quality (which needs to be impeccable on an article of this nature), and b) source-article agreement/verification
  4. it needs an image licensing check by someone who really knows what the are doing, like buidhe or Nikkimaria
  5. it needs a thorough copy-edit
Once those things are done, I suggest sending it to PR, where you will get further input. I would be happy to look at it at that stage of the process. In answer to your question, I read Latin script ok, speak it but my pronunciation is poor, and my grammar isn't great. I struggle with reading Cyrillic script, but can often make do by machine translating into Latin script. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Great, many thanks, PM. Now, if you don't mind, I have a few additional questions, just to clarify few things:
  1. definition of the subject - this matter doesn't need a separate subsection, a clearer elaboration in an adequately written lede could suffice - it should definitely not be part of the "Background" subsection? (I am not sure if clear-cut definition exists out there, however, Hoare has written few papers and entire book on it, so maybe a better definition could be put together from his writings);
  2. lede summary - inadequate in quality or quantity, or both? (it seems to me that the problem with the lede is that it doesn't summarize most of the topics covered in article; currently it revolves around definition explanation);
  3. copy-edit - do you think it should be performed because you noticed that there is a need for it at this point, or you meant in general? (I'm asking this because we had three copy-edits already, however, if you feel that there is a real need for the current text, I will post another request at the guild - same could be true for img licencing, it was checked during GA review process, however, it will be much easier to get one of those two suggested editors for the job, so I will ask them anyway);
  4. source review for a) and b) - is there a guild, as in the case of copy-editors, where we can ask for these checks specifically - can we considered the checks made during the "Review" process be a some guarantee that the sources have been checked?; (it was imperative for me to get "outsiders" (in relation to Balkans) for all the checks, for whom a higher degree of neutrality could be assumed, such as DePiep (copy-edit + MOS per request), Philip Cross, Calthinus (copy-edit + MOS per GA review process), Eisfbnore (copy-edit + MOS per GA review process));
As for the current state of the article and ongoing discussion on TP - it's a kilometer long discussion which is unnecessarily long and creates an appearance of an existence of huge and/or numerous problems and disagreements around "fundamental" issues, but it's rather a singular problem, created because one editor's insistence on whether the individual included as a "denier" should have explanatory statement also included, which is problematic from at least a standpoint of WP:COATRACK, but also should we give a platform for deniers' reasons at all. I don't wish to drag you into this problem, so I will conclude that we are working to resolve the matter, and I trust that Calthinus is more than a capable editor to bring this issue to a rest. Beside this singular issue, and this one editor's objection, the article is quite stable. I apologize for this longer take, and for conclusion I would like to ask you if you don't mind to copy/paste your remarks on the article TP, so that anyone interested in improving it have your inputs available there? Many thanks for the time and effort.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy for you to cut and paste any or all of the above to the article talk page. I'll elaborate there on your above queries. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, I will copy/paste entire thread which will make clearer what is this all about, only, Calthinus and Pincrete are in the midst of their discussion there, so it would be appropriate if I wait until they reach a resolution so that I don't cut straight into their thread. Once they reach consensus, hopefully in a day or two, we could archive that unbelievably enormous page, and then, having a clean sheet, I would copy/paste this entire thread and ping you for your inputs. (I also intend to ask at least the two of them to stick around and help fixing whatever is deem necessary at that point - given that the article has been quite dormant so far and without any meaningful editing since the promotion into GA, and that maybe I won't be able to fix everything myself.) Is this sounds like a plan?.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. I would post this as a new thread, and have implemented automatic incremental archiving of the talk page by a bot. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

AfD followed by FAC

Just ran into this and thought you'd be interested to see you're not the only one who's done it: Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina was AfDed and then promoted to FA, both nominations by Titoxd. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! Good to know I'm not the only one who completely misjudged the notability of a subject at some point! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to:
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and - especially -
that the New Year 2021 will be an improvement upon the old of 2020.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 04:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

Cheers! Happy Xmas to you too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hope you are resting and healing up alright after surgery, PM. Take care and Merry Xmas to you and your family. Cheers! OyMosby (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks OM! I'm coming good slowly. Happy Xmas to you too. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Archive box

Hello, PM, and thanks for archiving part of the Bosnian genocide denial Talk page, I would certainly have a problem with that because I have never successfully implemented automatic archiving on my User page TP (I never figured it out how to do it, so I have to do it manually regardless of template which I used). However, archive-bot did its job but there is currently no archive box anywhere on the page, and I am very reluctant to try and place it myself in fear that I might mess something up. When you get the time, take a look and see if you could place an archive box there - or however that works. Thanks again, and it seem that we are approaching a solution with our current dispute there, so I intend to proceed with the “plan” and ping you when the time comes.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I will fix that shortly. Good to hear things are progressing there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Library books

Hi PM, just wanted to update on your rex request: I should be able to swing by the library sometime tomorrow to pick up the books you requested for REX. If you get a chance, send me an email at some point and I can respond with the scans once I have the books. No rush though. Hope you’re staying well and safe and having happy holidays, no matter what they may be. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Done, and thanks again Eddie! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Green (Australian soldier)

On 22 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles Green (Australian soldier), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles Green was probably the youngest Australian Army infantry battalion commander during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Green (Australian soldier). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Charles Green (Australian soldier)), and if they received a combined total of 416.7 or more views per hour (ie, 5,000-plus views in 12 hours or 10,000-plus in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


Congratulations! With 10,767 views, your Charles Green hook is one of the most viewed non-lead/photo hooks for the month of December. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS December. Keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, that was unexpected! Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Peacemaker67, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
★Trekker (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Cheers! Merry Christmas to you too! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

It had not previously struck me how festive your name is, Donner60! Merry Christmas! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

'Tis the season

File:Christmas Truce Postcard.1.jpg
A postcard of the Christmas Truce, a moment where peace was made (however briefly) in the midst of war.

Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. It's been a wild year, and I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your contributions and for the role you play in making Wikipedia as good as it can be. Thank you for your tireless work reviewing content, writing content, mentoring users, and dealing with my mistakes on top of it all! It was a pleasure interacting with you this year. I wish you and your loved ones all the best this December and in the years to come. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Eddie! Merry Christmas to you and yours, and thank you for your huge contributions to the project this year! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviewing statistics

Reviews:

Peacemaker67: FAC reviews
# FACs Type
Declaration Image Source Content
Support 169
Oppose 1
No declaration 4 19 9
Grand Total 4 19 179

Just the reviewing statistics since you specified that; let me know if you want the nomination stats too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I keep track of my FACs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

29th Herzegovina Shock Division

Hi and merry Christmas. Do you have information on the 29th Herzegovina Shock Division? I came across a reference that members of this division executed Joachim Kirschner in December 1943. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

G’day MB, I do know a bit about the 29th but his execution may not be mentioned in the divisional history. I’ll check and let you know. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day MB, Danilo Komnenović and Muharem Kreso's 29. Hercegovačka Divizija (1979) p. 144 mentions the downing of Kirschner and of units of the division ambushing German troops from Mostar airfield searching for him on 19 December, but doesn't say anything about his death. It may only be mentioned in primary records such as divisional headquarters reports to corps headquarters. On pp. 163–164 it mentions a battalion of the 7th SS Division still looking for Kirschner in mid-February 1944. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! At least it appears the unit was active in that area. The part about the search is news to me. My sources, mostly Luftwaffe related, speak of search attempts involving one or more Fieseler Storch aircraft. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
If you'd like me to, I'd be happy to add some material from the book about the search. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, please. Kirschner will be one of the next articles I want to work on. Thank you MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
No worries, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

COPYVIO Concerns

Hi PM,

Am I engaged in copright infringement in my edits? Even after changing it up [Here]? If so, how should I word it better in wiki voice? Also I question the validity of the source Trbovich as I voiced some of the things she claims on the article talk page. I know Cohen can be biased as well. Which is why we usually get a back up source to confirm him. Please have a look when you get a chance. CheersOyMosby (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for George Gosse, "from the Royal Australian Navy. He was a naval mine clearance specialist who served in the RAN in the interwar period and WWII. In April 1945 he was given command of a naval party responsible for mine clearance in the recently captured Bremen Harbour in Germany. He displayed courage in defusing three mines under very difficult conditions between 8 May and 19 May 1945, which resulted in him being awarded the George Cross, the highest award for heroism or courage, not in the face of the enemy, that could be awarded to a member of the Australian armed forces at the time."! - Have a good 2012! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Military Historian of the Year

2020 Military Historian of the Year
As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Golden Wiki as the recipient of the 2020 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts throughout this year. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Eddie! And thanks for stewarding the process this year. It was nice to have a break from it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Congrats on the well deserved award! I was happy to be of some help, though I fear I may have caused more trouble than it was worth as I bumbled around figuring out how the process worked. Sorry I couldn't do the mass-messaging bit -- learning how to do it is on my goals for 2021. Hope you have a very happy new year and all the rest! Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Prodding Luftwaffe aces

Wouldn't it be better to add reliably sourced entries to List of World War II flying aces and redirect rather than deleting? (t · c) buidhe 11:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, it might be considered an abuse of a bureaucratic process by some, but I am planning to create redirects for any that are deleted via PROD. If they have to go to AfD, I will go for redirect to the list. I wanted to use PROD because I didn’t want to overload AfD and I think these ones are pretty straightforward. We’ll see I suppose. I don’t support the speedy deletions that were done by others with some of these KC recipients, because I considered that an abuse of process. So basically I see this as a mid-point and less bureaucratic approach that will hopefully get the same result. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Have a Happy New Year and Congratulations!

Hi PM, have a Happy New Year and congratulations on the deserved win! Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

And happy trails!OyMosby (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Cheers, am enjoying a bit of break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for existing. -Shift674-🌀 contribs 16:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Potential Pinocchio?

This IP here seems oddly specific to one article in an edit war going on. Or perhaps the stars simply aligned. Who knows? :) OyMosby (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I give up with that one. I am not enough across WWII Greece, and Macedonia in particular is an endless timesink. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Flanked by multiple fronts despite RS, I don’t blame you. I don’t see how your small passage is “undue” in the overall article. Slavs settled in that particular region and had an identity. But likewise not my area of expertise so can’t contribute much at the moment and yep “Macedonia” is fighting words for that part of the Balkans. OyMosby (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerning deletions

Hi there - firstly, big congrats on your Historian of the year award! Great effort. Just thought I'd stop the to-and-fro discussion regarding the Schleinhege deletion (and deletion policy in general) to instead discuss this personally with you. My first contention is that this is not a stub-entry, so is it doing any harm to the Military History reputation by keeping it in? Is there a nominal limit to the number of articles they wish to have, is this just a standard quota your team has to work to? Misterbee has the Prien and Mathews books and is doing methodical work adding in the aerial victory lists that adds to the detail on the pilots – can’t you leave the articles up to allow him the time to work on them? I’d given away the Military History group 3 years ago because of several editors pulling down the research and hard work of several of us, so I guess my opinion here is not as valid as the current regular contributors. I was working on biographies starting with “S” just because it’s natural for everyone to start at “A”. My aim was to expand the articles of the lesser-known aces, to bring the specialist knowledge to a more general audience. I only have tagged ‘watched’ on a small bundle of pilot articles (which is how Schleinhege and Schilling caught my eye), so I don’t know the list of what other articles are on the deletion list and if they include a raft of general pilots of many nations, or if this is just working through Luftwaffe pilots. I’ve read your articles on the Yugoslav T7 and T8 boats, which I find really interesting from a military and wargamer POV. Our group does regular WW2 naval wargaming – I have German & French forces, my friend runs Italian and Brazilian fleets so I really appreciate the detail. But I am struck that these too are small vessels of a minor naval power – isn’t their notability of a similar status to those German pilots: of great interest to specialists and adding to the prospective knowledge of general historians. Again, I just ask why is the Military History group limiting the scope of their Wikipedia when there are many more stubs that could be culled. Thanks for your time and consideration. Philby NZ (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. This isn’t about the reputation of the project at all, it is about general and specific notability, respectively guided by WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Here is an example of the problem with these articles. Biographies need biographical information, but in these cases, beyond the place and date of birth, we have zero information about these men. Their lives from birth to the time they enlisted are silent. In some cases, this means we have no information about 75% or more of their lives. We have no information about their parents, their education or interests before they joined up. No information about any relationships they may have had, whether they were a member of the Nazi Party or spent any time in the Hitler Youth or the NSFK. All we have is a name and a list of postings and victories. This is not a balanced or comprehensive approach to a biographical article, and the lack of biographical detail about these men indicates that there isn’t significant coverage of them in reliable sources as required by the GNG. We are also possibly whitewashing them as “mere pilots”, when they may have been enthusiastic Nazis. Neither being the recipient of the KC or being an ace creates a presumption of notability under SOLDIER either. Some of the sources used for them are hardly stellar either, some of them are quite fanboi-ish or wargaming-related, rather than solid historical works, which is also not ideal. These are some of the reasons I have PRODed these articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a new aspect I was unaware of. You are looking at deleting articles because there aren't details about their education, their parents or life after war? Is this same criteria being applied to the raft of articles about Allied pilots, or servicemen? Going ad absurdum, do we need to know if American pilots were in the KKK or investigated by the McCarthy trials for instance? (Answer is no) For the vast majority of historical miltary figures, their miltary service defined their lives and what has made them stand out from the millions of unnamed soldiers throughout history. And this can be extended to all aspects of life - be it sporting , political, entertainment or religious figures. I do not see this criteria being applied to other Wiki-biographies. I do concede this would be a criteria for acceptance to advance up to an A-grade article an beyond. But I guess the decision has been made and that is the way it is. Philby NZ (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That’s just one issue. The decision hasn’t been made. Anyone who thinks the article subjects are notable can unPROD an article, preferably stating on what grounds. If an editor wants to test that with the community, then they can nominate it at AfD. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Deprodding of Heinrich Füllgrabe

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Heinrich Füllgrabe, which you proposed for deletion. Added references and content, will continue editing later. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MB, I’m aware of the process. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 25 reviews between October and December 2020. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Ba Congress

Congratulations, Peacemaker67! The article you nominated, Ba Congress, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ba Congress

Hey, just so you know, I punched up the lead a bit. The article's great on the whole, but the lead just felt a bit disorganised, and had some really, really weird phrasings. I cut a bit of the AVNOJ Second Session's resolutions for flow, and moved some things to later paragraphs, to try and make things a bit clearer for someone coming into it from a position of ignorance. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 22:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Congratulations and excellent work on the Ba Congress article! OyMosby (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Peter Badcoe, about "the most recent South Australian awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry. Badcoe's VC was awarded following three separate acts of extreme bravery over a three month period during the Vietnam War, the last action costing him his life. He was the only commissioned officer to be awarded the VC in Vietnam."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks as always, Gerda! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

In appreciation

The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of the 160 thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you carried out for the Military History Project in 2020. This work is very much appreciated and one shudders to think where the Project would be without your efforts. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Royal Yugoslav Navy

I dunno what your timeline is for for this article, but it has a gaping hole in that there's no coverage of Naval Aviation. How's your French? I've just stumbled across an article in that language that covers the subject in a moderate amount of detail. If you can read it, I can send you a .pdf or you can wait for me to translate it and add the material myself. I didn't see any info from the Freivogel book so I suspect it's not a high priority for you at the moment, but I'll try and get everything updated this month or next. If you're planning to send it to FAC sooner, give me a buzz and I can advance that timetable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to add anything you have access to, Sturm. I won't be nomming it for FAC until I've sifted through both volumes of Velimir Terzić's Slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941 [The Collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1941], which has a lot of detail about the history and development of the navy up to the war. I have also ordered a few of Freivogel's books, and won't be doing much on the navy until they arrive via slow boat from Croatia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, my French is la merde. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Good. Hopefully they'll have some more info on Zmaj's peacetime activities, as I need to trawl through Freivogel and see what I can add to that article. IIRC, you're more interested in Yugoslavia than its predecessor states, is that right? 'Cause I found a three part article in French on the Royal Serbian Air Service in this pile of French aviation magazines that I've got. If that's not your thing, I'll just add the citations to the relevant articles. I'm glad that your Serbo-Croat is better than my crappy French and worse German. (Tenses, what are they for, again?)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

AE

There is an issue involving an editor in the Balkans area over at WP:AE which could use your input. Thank you. --Griboski (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Be careful what you ask for. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, I didn't ask because I thought you'd be on one side or another but because El C asked for input from an admin in the Balkans topic area and you are basically the only one that I know of who gets involved in these matters. --Griboski (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
That's good, because frankly I have taken a dim view of the ongoing behaviour of a number of editors in the Balkans space, especially in the last nine months to a year. BTW, EdJohnston has also been willing to look into these issues in the past, and he is not involved in the way I am. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is best practice

If you want to revert and protect the version before a dispute started, it's one thing, but note I just expanded a previously existing note then the note was removed. You protected not a 'stable' version but a new version with a note totally removed, further, right now only three people commented on the talk page, and right now two support my revision (well, one being myself, shrug). I am fine waiting to see what more people think but I think it is unfair that you restored one of the disputed versions instead of the previously stable one (from ~24h ago). Further, you also undid my edit that added referenced content that has not been challenged by anyone on talk or in an edit summary. How's that helpful? I think you should either restore the stable infobox version from before my edit here or simply protect the final version you found (which FYI does not have the infobox I prefer, I did not revert as I was following BRD and waiting for more comments on talk and I just started copyediting other parts of the article). Reverting my recent edit which, I repeat, was not disputed by anyone so far, and then protecting the page is just confusing, and it suggests involvement (protecting a version 'you like'). I don't think that was your intention, so please, either restore the version from 24h ago or restore my latest unchallenged edit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There is always someone who thinks the wrong version has been protected. You were edit warring, and should have sorted it out on the talk page, not via edit summaries. The current consensus is a combination of those that have reverted you and those discussing on the talk page. Just work towards a consensus on the talk page, THEN implement it in the article. I am not “involved” because I reverted you, I have expressed no view on the matter in question. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, You fail to answer why you have reverted me before protecting the page. You did not explain why you did not choose to protect the stable version. And you did not answer why you reverted my edit that added new content, new references, and that wasn't challenged by anyone except you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. This isn't about "wrong version". This is about you involving yourself in a dispute by participating in an edit war then using your admin powers to protect your own preferred version (which as it happens, was NOT the long standing stable version). You expressed an opinion by participating in an edit war.The version that has been there for years is the one with consensus so it's those who wish to change from that version that need to obtain new consensus. Volunteer Marek 00:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but I was largely offline for the last day or so. What happened yesterday (25/1/21) between 07:17 and 10:43 UTC (there had been no edits prior to that going back two weeks, in summary, was:

  1. Piotrus changed a note to the listing of the USSR in the infobox under "Co-belligerent states:" to say that the USSR could be considered one of the former Axis powers or co-belligerents [21];
  2. Beyond My Ken reverted that addition five minutes later [22] requesting a reliable source for the USSR being an Axis Power (this indicated the matter was in dispute, and concerned editors should sort it out on the talk page and not edit war);
  3. BMK then removed the USSR note completely two minutes later [23];
  4. At 07:33, BMK deleted a USSR note [24];
  5. At 07:56 Piotrus re-added the USSR notes with more detail, added the USSR to the infobox under "States that adhered to the Tripartite Pact:", sourced to Moorhouse, who explicitly says in the quote that he does not call them allies (but something close in many respects), one of the notes also stated that the USSR was an Axis co-belligerent, the Moorhouse quote doesn't support this term explicitly, or the adherence of the USSR to the Tripartite Pact [25];
  6. At 08:16, BMK reverted Piotrus, pointing out what I observed immediately above about what Moorhouse does and doesn't say and/or support [26];
  7. At 08:41, Piotrus re-inserted the same material they inserted at 07:56 [27]. Given the nature, content and intent of the material inserted by Piotrus was little different in the 07:17, 07:56 and 08:41 edits, and BMK's reversions were likewise similar, they were both sailing very close to a 3RR violation at this stage. At this point, NO-ONE had started a thread on the talk page to discuss this. This only began at 08:45, initiated by Piotrus;
  8. At 08:51, Astral Leap removed the insertion of the USSR under "Allies:" in the infobox,[28] and began engaging on the talk page, reverting themselves a minute later, and re-reverting themselves a minute after that;
  9. At 09:19, Volunteer Marek re-inserted the material after engaging on the talk page [29];
  10. At 10:16, Britmax reverted VM [30] mentioning the discussion, but not engaging there;
  11. At 10:39, Piotrus inserted material into the body with citations to what look like reliable sources, supporting the view that the USSR was a co-belligerent [31];
  12. At 10:42, I undid Piotrus' final insertion noting that discussion (about the issue of whether the USSR was an ally or co-belligerent) was occuring on the talk page [32]; and
  13. I fully protected the page for 12 hours to allow things to cool down and be discussed on the talk page [33].

Basically, not to put too fine a point on it, Piotrus had added to an unsourced note and the USSR's co-belligerency, and was reverted by BMK, then escalated the issue by moving the USSR to the "States that adhered to the Tripartite Pact:" of the infobox with a source that did not support it being placed in that section, was reverted by BMK, then re-inserted the same material. Finally Piotrus went to the talk page. Three other editors then removed and re-added essentially the same material, some of whom engaged on the talk page. So we now had five editors re-inserting and removing essentially the same material in the infobox. Then Piotrus finally sourced the original note change about co-belligerency in the body, fortunately without re-inserting it in the infobox, which I would have considered a blockable 3RR violation. All this happened in 3.5 hours.

To me it looked like a brewing edit war with five editors involved, and Piotrus had clearly been adding material the basis of which was at least questionable given the initial lack of sources, and then sources that did not support the repositioning of the USSR in the infobox. I acted to protect the article from further edit warring for long enough for a consensus to develop on the talk page about where in the infobox the USSR should be placed, and what reliable sources could be used to support that, and to avoid Piotrus being tempted to break 3RR. Now, you can criticise my decision to revert Piotrus' final edit, and I will take that on the chin, but to me the protection of the article and deterring edit warring and a 3RR violation by Piotrus (which I considered highly likely after they added the co-belligerent material to the body) was the most important issue, more important than whether it was the "wrong version". I continue to have no opinion on the merits of the various aspects of the dispute, and clearly do not meet the criteria of WP:INVOLVED, as I have neither been a party to this dispute or have strong feelings about it. The protection was only for 12 hours, and I doubt anyone among out the readers was too affected by the freezing of article in the state it was for such a short period, particularly as Piotrus' final edit did not resolve the infobox issue (it was an edit to the body), and most readers only read the lead and the infobox. Hopefully you will now have sorted this out, and there will be no more edit-warring about it. I suggest more engagement on the talk page about such issues, and less editing until you have gained a consensus on the talk page on what is clearly a contested issue. Good luck with it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Axis Powers

I believe you need to extend the protection on this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the intensity of edit-warring of yesterday. See my comment above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

AE

Hello. I highly appreciate your work and dedication, and I have an obligation to respect your assessment of the policy violation and the decision on restrictions. However, one thing I have to say. I'm really disappointed and deeply shaken by certain descriptions. To accuse me of pro-nationalist views and denial of genocide is a serious misunderstanding. Especially since I have been deeply devoted all my life to condemning nationalism and prejudice of any kind. Even on Wikipedia, I wrote countless criticisms of Serbian politics and its leaders, including nationalist moves (1991–1992 anti-war protests in Belgrade, Aleksandar Vučić, Tomislav Nikolić, Slobodan Milošević, 2018–2020 Serbian protests, Media freedom in Serbia...). Many of my family members are of different ethnic and religious groups, they would be shocked to hear that someone judged me like this.

I never questioned the Bosnian genocide and war crimes during the Bosnian war. Moreover, I also wrote condemnations of denial. The last change in the article is an accidental mistake that has nothing to do with Bosnia, or Balkan issues in general. A mere coincidence. Those sections still need to be removed from the Genocides in history (before World War I) article. Furthermore, during 12 years on Wikipedia, I hardly ever interfered in articles about Chetniks. I have been involved in recent weeks, and I have never covered up crimes, diminished their number, or brutality. I just opened the question of historical and legal classification, more precisely whether there is a consensus or not. Indeed, no one should accuse me of denying or downplaying. I admit that I used to react emotionally, especially now I am privately in a difficult period, but I often apologized and I almost always preferred to resolve the misunderstanding with a civilized agreement. I am simply such a person. I wish you could see that too. I feel very sad because of the whole situation, and especially these strong labels. I hope that there will be opportunities for us to cooperate in the future. If I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

G'day WEBDuB. Thanks for contacting me. You must be aware of the fact that you edit in highly contentious areas and take an obviously pro-Serb stance, which is clearly not neutral. There is no place on Wikipedia for people who want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I strongly suggest that while you are TBANed, you closely examine your editing history and your actions, and read a range of academic quality books published outside Serbia that examine the history of the region, like Ramet, Tomasevich, Pavlowich, Milazzo and Hoare. During your TBAN I encourage you to continue to edit in uncontentious areas of Wikipedia outside of the Balkans areas to demonstrate that you can edit neutrally. Then after six months of such editing, return to AE and ask for your TBAN to be lifted. I must warn you that if your TBAN is lifted and you go back to the same disruptive editing behaviour you have displayed pretty consistently in the last year or so, I will not hesitate to report you there and ask that you receive an indefinite TBAN or be site blocked to protect the encyclopaedia. The Balkans has always been a very fraught area of Wikipedia, and the recent increase in disruption and POV-pushing from various sides has been allowed to go on for too long. I partly blame myself for letting many things slide while I have been focussed on content creation and the Milhist project. That will not be continuing, even if I have to let some content creation go for a while. Good luck and happy editing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can justify taking such a strong stance in this case against WEBDuB who, up until the recent issues, has been a productive editor for a very long time, while simultaneously defending and giving a free pass to another editor I recently reported whose much shorter tenure here has been defined by worse uncooperative, tendentious and POV editing. WEBDuB also almost always uses reliable Western sources on history articles, including some of the ones you mentioned above. Anyway, I'm sure that he will take this time to reflect and become better. --Griboski (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I should have been taking a stronger stance on all problematic editing on my watchlist, and, as I have acknowledged, I haven't been. That will not be the case from here on in. I also hope WEBDuB uses the time to reflect and improve the neutrality of their editing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The Military history A-Class cross 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class cross for Yugoslav torpedo boat T2, Milorad Ekmečić, Navy of the Independent State of Croatia, Charles Green (Australian soldier), and Uroš Drenović. Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations! 35 of those is a very impressive number. Hog Farm Talk 00:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks HF! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this statement correct?

Hi there I just stumbled across the Charles Green (Australian soldier) page. In the intro it says "He went on to command the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3 RAR), during the Korean War, where he died of wounds." . Is the term 'where he died of wounds' a military term, as to a native English speaker it sounds a bit funny, if not I propose to change it to "where he died from his wounds" or "where he died of his wounds" --James Richards (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it is a bit jargonistic. Go ahead. And thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Major (Now Brigadier, Retd) Vijay Kumar Berry MVC.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Major (Now Brigadier, Retd) Vijay Kumar Berry MVC.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI revert

Hi Peacemaker67, I am just wondering why you reverted my comment at ANI? Thanks, Citobun (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Sausage fingers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
No problem, thanks :) Citobun (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Milan Nedić

I don't know whether or not Nedić being listed in the 100 most prominent Serbs belongs in the lead, maybe it does, but it doesn't reflect well on you as an administrator to support the additions of these same long-term abusive IPs instead of supporting the WP:STABLE version. The onus is on the one making the change to argue why it should be made, on the talk page, not the other way around. Using your administrative powers to impose your preferred version isn't okay. --Griboski (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

G'day Griboski. That is absolute nonsense. I haven't used my admin powers at all, I have never protected this article, only ever edited it. I have just reverted POV pushing as any other editor can. This article is not in a good state, especially the lead, fails to mention all sorts of important aspects of his biography, and any additions of uncontested facts such as this which are cited to a highly reliable academic source in the body are welcome. Saying it is the "stable" version of an inadequate lead is completely meaningless. It isn't a GA, it is Start Class. The removal of this information from the lead is serious POV pushing, because it is an attempt to avoid mentioning the whitewashing of the involvement of Nedić in all sorts of collaborative activities and highlight the strong current of revisionism in Serbian historiography regarding the collaboration of Serbs with the Germans in the occupied territory, by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts no less. Something that anyone that had read widely on the subject would be aware of, and would expect to find in the lead. I can only assume that editors removing such material from the lead are trying to hide aspects of his biography in order to push a pro-Serbian POV. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree having it there is reasonable but you're also not looking at the fact that these Croatian IPs adding this sort of information are engaging in their own POV-pushing. I am under the impression that the burden is always on those adding info. That IP was banned and is the same one who has engaged in LTA behavior I noted above. --Griboski (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I revert POV-pushing by any side. But we don't revert edits by IPs everywhere because they are POV-pushing somewhere, or even if they are blocked. Every edit must be assessed on its own merits. There is a huge amount of POV-pushing from all sides going on at present in the Balkans area, and I can tell you that I have little patience for it, and if I was not involved I would already have blocked several editors that are highly active in this space. Effective ANI reports take a while to put together. There is likely to be a lot of action at ANI shortly unless it stops, so all sides should be backing off unless they want to be TBANed or blocked. The inclusion of this material in the lead is hardly POV-pushing, it is neutral as far as I am concerned. There is no BURDEN here, because the material is already reliably cited to an academic source in the body, and its importance clearly makes it suitable for the lead per WEIGHT. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

April 12 TFA

PM, sorry for my brief iPad typing as my computer is being repaired. I realize you had a 12 April TFA pending request, but Balon Greyjoy had a conflict with dementia with Lewy bodies on July 21, that might be resolved by using April 12. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Space Shuttle. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've responded there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Most kind of you, thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ McCormick 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peacemaker67/Archive_22&oldid=1143221108"