Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:47, 16 October 2020

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The January newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates GL Mk. I radar • Andrea Navagero • George Washington • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service • Battle of Köse Dağ • Marching Through Georgia • Siege of Tunis (Mercenary War) Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Pre-dreadnought battleship Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Project Pluto • SMS Berlin • AN/APS-20 • USS Varuna (1861) • Battle of Meligalas • Battle of Arkansas Post (1863) • Henry de Hinuber • Scott Carpenter Peer reviews Urien • War of the Antiochene Succession • 4th Army (France) • List of foreign-born samurai in Japan • Hiroshima Maidens • German Jewish military personnel of World War II • Outline of George Washington • Central Powers • Ben Roberts-Smith • Bertrand Clauzel • Japanese occupation of West Sumatra Good article nominees Regency of Algiers • History of the Regency of Algiers • Perdiccas • Ziaur Rahman • Pierre François Bauduin • HMS Sheffield (C24) • SMS Scorpion (1860) • 1991 Andover tornado • Henry O'Neill (soldier) • Statue of John Barry • Battle of Chunj • USS Gyatt • Michael Mantenuto • SMS Bremse (1884) • Fritz Strassmann • Lord Clyde-class ironclad • Dédée Bazile • Scaliger War • George Palaiologos • Gustavus Guydickens • First Anglo–Ashanti War • Siege of Khujand • First Jewish–Roman War • Siege of Golconda • George B. Crittenden • John Paul Jones Memorial • John Laurens • Hubert Conway Rees Good article reassessments Mikhail Gorbachev • Henry VIII • Wings (1927 film) • Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho • John Henry Turpin Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (150,019) • only work on referencing and citation (43,211) • work on coverage and accuracy (125,351) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,940) • work on structure (32,196) • only work on structure (345) • work on grammar (8,209) • only work on grammar (48) • work on supporting materials (32,848) • only work on supporting materials (432) • assessment (3) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (10) • assessment checklists added (2) • assessment checklists completed (7) • task forces added (5) • attention to task force coverage (651)

Military history WikiProject Main project page + talk News & open tasks Academy Core work areas Assessment Main page  → A-Class FAQ  → B-Class FAQ  → A-Class review requests  → Assessment requests  → Current statistics  → Review alert box Contests Main page  → Contest entries  → Scoring log archive  → Scoreboard archive Coordination Main page + talk  → Handbook  → Bugle newsroom talk  → ACM eligibility tracking  → Discussion alert box Incubator Main page  → Current groups and initiatives Special projects Majestic Titan talk Member affairs Membership Full list talk  → Active / Inactive  → Userboxes Awards Main page talk  →A-Class medals  →A-Class crosses  → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves Resources Guidelines Content Notability Style Templates Infoboxes  → Command structure doc · talk  → Firearm cartridge doc · talk  → Military award doc · talk  → Military conflict doc · talk  → Military installation doc · talk  → Military memorial doc · talk  → Military person doc · talk  → Military unit doc · talk  → National military doc · talk  → Military operation doc · talk  → Service record doc · talk  → Militant organization doc · talk  → Weapon doc · talk Navigation boxes doc · talk  → Campaignboxes doc · talk Project banner doc · talk Announcement & task box  → Discussion alert box  → Review alert box Template design style doc · talk Showcase Featured articles 1519 Featured lists 149 Featured topics 41 Featured pictures 548 Featured sounds 69 Featured portals 5 A-Class articles 683 A-Class lists 40 Good articles 5,600 Automated lists Article alerts Most popular articles New articles Nominations for deletion Task forces General topics Fortifications Intelligence Maritime warfare Military aviation Military culture, traditions, and heraldry Military biography Military historiography Military land vehicles Military logistics and medicine Military memorials and cemeteries Military science, technology, and theory National militaries War films Weaponry Nations and regions African military history Asian military history Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history Balkan military history Baltic states military history British military history Canadian military history Chinese military history Dutch military history European military history French military history German military history Indian military history Italian military history Japanese military history Korean military history Middle Eastern military history Nordic military history North American military history Ottoman military history Polish military history Roman and Byzantine military history Russian, Soviet and CIS military history South American military history South Asian military history Southeast Asian military history Spanish military history United States military history Periods and conflicts Classical warfare Medieval warfare Early Muslim military history Crusades Early Modern warfare Wars of the Three Kingdoms American Revolutionary War Napoleonic era American Civil War World War I World War II Cold War Post-Cold War Related projects Blades Espionage Firearms Pritzker Military Museum & Library Piracy Ships edit · changes Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012. This project has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: David Stahel (18 July 2018). "The Battle for Misplaced Pages: The New Age of 'Lost Victories'?". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Retrieved 1 April 2019. Noam Cohen (September 8, 2021). "One Woman's Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Misplaced Pages". Wired (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021. "The Depths of Wikipedians". Asterisk Magazine. November 1, 2024. Retrieved December 11, 2024. Shortcut WT:MILHIST

Photo of Douglas MacArthur?

This image is a new Featured Picture and is in the Signpost as well as the article on Beulah Ream Allen, the woman in the image. It does not resemble General MacArthur, and the original source of the image does not identify the man. The photo dates from 1946, when MacArthur was in Japan, and Dr. Allen had returned to the United States in March 1945, according to our article on her. That Misplaced Pages article states that MacArthur awarded the Freedom Medal to her, citing two newspaper articles in support: a 1989 article which states that "she was awarded the Freedom Medal by General Douglas MacArthur", and a 1946 article which stated she was "awarded the Medal of Freedom by the United States Army" with no mention of MacArthur.

I don't believe Misplaced Pages can assert that the officer shown is MacArthur. Kablammo (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I was looking at that guy's shoulder. MacArthur was a 5-star general. The man in the picture looks to have only one star. Wonder who he is. — Maile (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. It wasn't Sutherland or Kenney.

I notified Adam on his page. I don't think the 1989 obit is adequate sourcing. Perhaps he nominated her for the medal, but it seems clear he did not physically present it to her as he was in the Orient until 1951. Kablammo (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

And this, mind you, was a “good article”. I guess that’s like “good” for coins and firearms.... Qwirkle (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty confused by what I'm looking at, but the lower part of his shoulder insignia looks like a colonel's eagle and the upper part looks kind of like a lieutenant colonel's oak leaf. Either way, that sure as heck isn't MacArthur. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not sure of the process in the US but in the Commonwealth "awarded by" can mean "recommended by", and doesn't always mean the person who physically pins the medal on. So Mac might've instigated the award but another officer presented it. What I mean is I don't necessarily see a contradiction between the reports of Mac awarding the medal and the fact that it's not Mac in the picture of the presentation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah ... now that you mention it ... in the US the Medal of Honor is awarded by Congress, but the president puts it on the honoree's neck. — Maile (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that guy is definitely a full-bird colonel. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Two conflicting sources on that, one says incorrectly that it was MacAuthor, the other points out that she was awarded the medal but not by who. There isn't a date given either, its listed officially as "19--". Assuming 1946, then we are looking at someone attached to the staff of the Sixth United States Army (under General Joseph Stilwell or George P. Hayes) or someone holding a full bird's rank in DC, but again, the sources and the image itself are damningly silent on that. Assuming these are awards her husband earned which she accepted in 1947, we may be looking for someone on staff for Mark W. Clark. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, These are not the medals she accepted for her husband. She received this medal in 1946 for her own service as a physician. Her husband's medals were a) not the same (Soldier's Medal and Bronze Star Medal) and 2) were posthumously awarded in a Veteran's Day celebration in 1947. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the image source itself has no date, it is unclear to me by what method you are connecting the print sources to the image sources. That is, if I am understanding TomStar81 correctly, we don't even know which medals these are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Before we say for sure that this is the presidential medal of freedom we have got to nail the man, the place, and the date, and we have no of that...yet. We've botched this badly enough as is, so lets actually take the time to get this right before we make anymore assumptions. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As a side issue on the "four women" claim, can we do better on documenting what women did receive what medals during/after/because of World War II? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Just to make everything worse, I'm not convinced that's the Medal of Freedom being awarded there. The medal (picture here is red with four vertical narrow white stripes. It's hard to tell from the image (and, you know, the picture's black and white), but the light vertical stripes on the ribbon in the picture look too wide. Also, if I squint, it looks like there are two more dark stripes on either side of the white area, which doesn't match the Medal of Freedom at all and suggests that there are three colors on this ribbon. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: Which is why I can't officially rule out 1947 as the date of the photo: This could be the Soldier's Medal. From an angle, the Soldier's Medal roughly matches the award in the image. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Should the article text and image captions be adjusted until this is worked out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

TomStar81, got it, thanks. And yet...File:Generaal_Spoor_ontvangt_een_Amerikaanse_onderscheiding._Walter_A._Foote,_de_Ame…,_Bestanddeelnr_10004.jpg purports to show a Medal of Freedom, and that looks similar to the one being awarded here. (so far, we've managed to misidentify the person pinning on, incorrectly identify the medal as the "presidential" medal of freedom, it might not even be the medal of freedom... boy, I hope that at least we identified her correctly in the picture...) GeneralNotability (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons admin needed

The description of the image at Commons needs to be changed. It still identifies that man as MacArthur, and that propagates to WP where the image is used. But a Commmons administrator is needed to fix that. Kablammo (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The MacArthur category also needs to be removed. Kablammo (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Kablammo, I bugged Nick on IRC, it's now removed. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Project Durova

Just about 11 years ago we took one of the these old images and restored it, and thanks to Durova we actually changed history. Literally. I still believe that the project and it's components can rise to the occasion if we do things correctly. What we need is a plan of attack.

• @Adam Cuerden: You restored the image, is there any chance we might get a higher resolution out of it?
• @SusunW: Your a member of WikiProject Women's History, is there any place you can think of me might try finding additional sources for the lady's biography article?
• @SandyGeorgia: You're one of the best content reviewers we have, is there anything that stands out to you about the article that we could expand on? Newspapers, Online resources, overseas doors we might use the net to knock on?
• @GorillaWarfare: Your userpage shows you're a software engineer with twitter access, any chance we might find a relative out there somewhere who could help us fill in some of the blanks here?
• @GeneralNotability: Your COI disclosure mentions George Mason University, Virginia, and MacAuthor was buried in Virginia. Do you think there may be a chance that the university would have information of MacAuthor's staff? If it does we can perhaps pull names and ranks and start looking faces from MacAuthor's staff.
• @Nihonjoe: You and SandyGeorgia just finished a long review of these concentration camps, as I understand it. If we could narrow down the ranking US officers in these campaigns it could help us with our mystery colonel: if he had been held in one of these camps its possible he was a recipient of medical aid from the nurse and therefore awarded the medal himself.

We can do this people, we just need to take our time and work together. How about it? Who wants to help solve a mystery? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

TomStar81, I highly doubt Mason has anything related to MacArthur...but I'm always up for a mystery. I'm going to contact the MacArthur Memorial foundation, their website lists a number of archivists for MacArthur's effects - maybe one of them recognizes our mystery colonel. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What I would offer is that usually approaching the Government about images yields results ... except ... I am not so sure that is true during COVID. I have had quite a time with an issue I am pursuing with Washington, so I am unsure if suggesting someone try to track this down at the source will yield results, but something in Washington may have better luck than I am having with phone contact. (We can guess that if they had more information, they would have included it on the record.) Perhaps there is some sort of museum somewhere that specializes in military nurses and physicians? Other than that, I would adjust for MOS:DOCTOR and look into adding information as to whether she was Mormon, which seems highly likely, and in that case, more records might be found from the church. Another approach is to look into this from the angle of the husband-- that could lead to whether the image might have been one of her husband's medals. Our review at Manzanar just tuned me in to the issues around the "concentration camp" terminology, and my knowledge of military rank is not enough for these images (other than obviously there are no general's stars on that jacket). And other than that, I can tell you that slow and steady wins the race, and Nihonjoe gets to things as soon as he is able, which is not always speedily :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I should have said Bethesda, rather than Washington D.C. for the National Library of Medicine--NLM support page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I did restore the image at full resolution offered; it may be possible to get better, but I'm not sure if this copy of the photo would bring out much more detail, although there may be other copies. I got this image from the National Library of Medicine, but I can't imagine they're the only group that would have interest in this.

I can't imagine there isn't documentation on Medal of Freedom recipients, just like Victoria Crosses. Looking that up will likely bring a host of documentation possibilities.

Finally, I can't imagine that this wasn't covered in a newspaper, which gives a third avenue. Adam Cuerden _{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 20:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This source says her sons received their father's medals, which would make this image her medal. But it also says she received her medals from Truman, which makes the source ... as useful as the others. Also, it's a student newspaper if I am reading it right, so I am not sure we should assume either statement is correct. Her sons' names are given. And on the other hand, this source contradicts that, saying SHE received her husband's medals. And then, this source says the President (presumably Truman) decorated her. So, 'tis a mess. And more attribution of statements is needed in the article ... so-and-so source says X, but other so-and-so says Y. Too many conflicting sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Technically Truman "awarded" all of the Freedom Medals, it was a presidential prerogative. I understand that some 20,000 were awarded (I could be wrong). But he didn't personally hand over all of them - that's a different meaning of the word "awarded". So Truman could have "awarded" the medal, while a handy LtC "awarded" it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• If it wouldn't be intruding, I will try and help too. Here's what I'm finding so far Who's Who of American Women (Free version here, p. 19: ALLEN, Beulah Ream, physician; b. Dingle, Ida., Jan. 26, 1897; d. William Dewine and Nora Ellen (Crockett) Ream; R.N., III. Tng. Sch. for Nurses, 1922; A.B., U. Utah, 1928; M.D., U. Cal. San Francisco, 1932; m. Henderson Wilcox Allen, Sept. 27, 1937; children—Lee, Henderson Wilcox. Intern, Children's Hosp., San Francisco, 1931–32; resident, chief resident St. Luke's Hosp., Manila, 1932-34; med. officer in charge Mary J. Johnston Hosp., Manila, 1934-35, 37-41; Japanese war prisoner, Baguio and Manila, 1941-45; pvt. practice San Leandro, Cal., 1945-47, Palo Alto and San Francisco; 1947-60 tehr., supervised family relations classes, 1951-60; Recipient Medal of Freedom, 1945. Mem. Am. Acad. Sci., Am. Acad. Gen. Practice, Alpha Epsilon Iota. Mem. Ch. of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. Club: Soroptimist., Who's who of American Women and Women of Canada, Volume 5 adds 1951-60 ; dean Coll . Nursing Brigham Young U. , 1961-65 ; gen . practice , 1965.- I can keep looking if wanted. Best, Eddie891 _Work 21:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently her first husband was a half-bird, if this site is to be believed. One LTC Henderson Wilcox Allen, listed as KIA in 1942. She apparently remarried, according to this site, her second husband was Joseph Smith Jarvis, whose DOB is given as 1894. He could be the man in the picture, but 1946 its possible if he was drafted he may have made colonel, but the admittedly threadbare records do not show any military service. Thats why I've been able to find. @Eddie891: The more the merrier, so dive right in :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delving wayyy into OR here, but if President Truman awarded nine MOF's , and those nine were Robert Lovett , George R. Harrison , William Hammon , Ching-Yuen Hsiao , three women: Anna M. Rosenberg (sources suggest eisenhower awarded it to her?) , Andree de Jongh , Marie Louise Dissard (I'm concerned the CSmonitor draws on this iffy source]), then she could have been a fourth woman. The ninth person could be Stanton Griffis or Bent Faurschou Hviid or Herman Laatsman. Eddie891 _Work 22:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the last page of this, Margaret Utinsky got one in 1946. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Ignore that. Not from Truman, one of the other 22,000. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

because numerous government officials could award a MOF, there was no official record of who received the medal from government officials, other than those awarded by the president. As many as 22,000 MOFs were awarded by government officials between 1945 and 1961 . Huh. Given that she is not mentioned with Truman in any context in any source, and our sources date her MOF to 1945, it's my amateur opinion that she is also one of the other 22,000 , which will make things a lot harder. Eddie891 _Work 23:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What if we assume the source saying it was awarded by MacArthur is correct, but insofar as he caused her to be given it? Adam Cuerden _{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 01:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m inclined to think that’s the case, with no evidence to back it up at the moment. — Eddie891 _Work 01:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Using some caution, https://prabook.com/web/beulah_ream.allen/790318 says she's in Marquis Who's Who. I don't know how reliable that is, though. Adam Cuerden _{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 04:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Eddie891 posted that above, in green. Harrias 07:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll be darned, the MacArthur Memorial folks actually responded to my email! They said they don't recognize the officer, they think the picture was taken stateside (they're both wearing cold-weather uniforms so it likely rules out the picture being taken in the Phillipines, though they say it could have been in Japan), and they'll take a look at their archives to see if they have anything else on her. So mostly a strikeout, but still...I love it when we actually hear back. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! And over at Talk:Beulah Ream Allen, User:Rachel Helps (BYU) is digging for info as well. But it sounds like I should give up on any sort of verification of the "only four women". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The two curators I e-mailed got back to me, confirming that there isn't a single record of the Medal of Freedom recipients, and that the man in the photo is difficult to identify. Beulah Ream Allen's biography is waiting for me next time I go into the office. The biography appears to have been written by a nursing specialist (I'm not sure if she was related to Allen or not). There are some records of recipients, but they are not digitized (see the National Archives). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I checked out the biography. It is self-published, and the authors are Allen's niece and grand-niece. The biography contains transcriptions of letters and oral histories from Allen and people close to her. Reading it, I feel like the authors did a good job, but I know self-published sources are not usually considered reliable sources (however, I have used them selectively on some pages). It does mention her receiving the award, but not how (and repeats the "one of four women" statistic). However, there is a photo of her two sons receiving Lieutenant Colonel Henderson Allen's medals from General Mark Clark. Hendy is four in the photo, so it would have been in 1946. Somewhat ironically, there is a photo of Allen with Douglas MacArthur! He briefly met with her and her son Lee after his graduation from West Point in 1960. The biography has a lot more information about Allen's personal life, including her first fiance (her family disapproved of him and basically ruined their relationship), her relationship with Dr. Nance (who performed the C-section to deliver her son!) and her other experiences in the POW camp. If there is consensus that the source is okay to use for her personal life, I'm happy to add details from it to her page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

email update

I've been in email communication with a Misplaced Pages who wishes to remain anonymous, they have provided the following information in their own attempts to track this down:

To my eye, there is no conflicting information in the various sources as to claims about Truman or MacAruthur. It was widely touted as Truman's medal authorized in July 1945, and recipients were to be selected by the secretary of state, secretary of the navy or secretary of war. Looking through clippings about the awards below, they were typically not reported as having been granted by the cabinet member, but instead by the general who proposed them. A side note, the medal did not apply to women unless their service was overseas or they were foreign.

Also, it is apparent that whoever nominated them, they were typically pinned where they lived. Thus, Allen lived in San Francisco Bay at the time. What military installations were there at the time? That is where our search for "who is in the photo?" should begin.

The first American woman to receive the medal was Anna Rosenburg on 30 October 1945.

This tells us that between Rosenburg and Allen (whose award was reported 2 June, 1946) there were only 8 months, so it seems likely there won't be masses of women who received it. We also know that there was a committee researching the nominees and they did not complete their research on the first batch of potential Red Cross workers until March 1946 or foreign awardees until May 1946

• Rosamond Thornton received it December 10, 1945
• Elizabeth Beeson received in February 1946
• Matilda Alston in February 1946
• Virginia Woolfolk received it March 1946
• Laura Haight received it in April 1946
• Mary E. Opp (was she dead? her mother received it) April 1946
• Thelma Day received it in April 1946
• Josephine McNamara received it in April 1946
• Minna Harrison received it in May 1946
• Beulah Allen received it in June 1946

Looks like to me, Allen was the 10th American woman to receive it, give or take, assuming that there are some newspapers that are missing from this database. I'll check on another one I have access to. As for military bases, looking here, there were dozens in the Bay Area. Perhaps the California State Military Museum can assist? This says "Since the Medal of Freedom’s inception in 1945, U.S. presidents only bestowed 23 of these medals—President Truman awarded nine (all in 1946), President Eisenhower awarded 13, and President Kennedy awarded only one. However, because numerous government officials could award a MOF, there was no official record of who received the medal from government officials, other than those awarded by the president. As many as 22,000 MOFs were awarded by government officials between 1945 and 1961 (Wetterau 1996, 9, 11-12)."

Hope this helps.

Given this additional information, is there anywhere else we might try shaking to gain a lead on the colonel in the photograph? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

And we should delete the “only four women” claim? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A-Class review for Hitler's prophecy needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Hitler's prophecy; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm on it, but we'll still need a couple more afterwards. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Rommel's tall tales

I came across his "Infantry Attacks" book and decided to check out his own take on his company's actions during the Second Battle of the Jiu Valley, and I must say, I am highly skeptical of several of his assessments. First, he stated that he was outnumbered by the Romanians 10 to 1. Now, the reason I find this extremely hard to believe is the fact that - during the overall battle - it was the Germans outnumbering the Romanians more than 2 to 1, a fact which I made very clear in the very heading of the aforementioned article. I find it likely that he was outnumbered, but not to that extent. Then, he goes on to say that among the Romanian dead in the field there was a divisional commander. Full stop, complete bonkers. There was only one Romanian division on that sector of the front, and its commander was relieved following the battle, obviously meaning that he was very much alive. I wanted to write this paragraph as a warning. Rommel is popular and so are his writings, that's why I must caution: grain of salt, folks, grain of salt. Transylvania1916 (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It is essentially a memoir, so in my experience it is treated very carefully on en WP. For example, it isn't used as a reference even in the article about Rommel. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I just used it to reference the losses of his company during this battle, nothing else. Transylvania1916 (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to use such books for friendly losses and basic information about troop movements etc, but not enemy information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A-class concerns

I am concerned that the quality of A-class reviews has fallen considerably from the days when, as FAC delegate, I relied on them as top-notch. They are increasingly just prose nitpicks, as seen by the level of issues found at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Manuel Noriega/archive1, and further discussed on article talk, compared to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manuel Noriega. Is there a process whereby A-class is re-assessed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: - The instructions at WP:MILHIST/ACR say to drop a notice on the coordinator talk page, but this ought to be good enough. At least from my experience, I almost think that the Noriega review may be from most of the editors involved not having the familiarity with the subject matter to know where to look for details, and then maybe a bit of a lapse on the source review, also due to unfamiliarity. The ACR standards for some topics, such as ships, still seems to be pretty high yet, and I've been satisfied with the reviews for Confederate States Army units I've brought through, and would say the articles have definitely been improved my them. I agree with you, though, that quite a bit slipped through the Noriega review, though. Honestly a bit disconcerting. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

G’day SG, the process is the same as nominating for promotion (per WP:MHR), just include in the nom statement why you are putting it up for re-assessment. Note that the old ACR page has to be moved to /archive1 to make room for the re-assessment first. Let me know if you want a hand with that or if the instructions aren’t clear. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't plan to initiate the A-class reassessment, or the GAR (which is also needed); I will leave that to those who participate in those processes. I came to this article via FAC, and if I got involved in re-assessing all the faulty GA passes I am aware of, I would never get any other work done. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Having now been through Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents/archive1 (which also passed A-class), it strikes me that the problem is that reviewers may not have even read the sources. Between both articles, there are several instances where the sources just aren't fully or accurately represented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

To the extent that there's a problem here, I agree that the likely cause is the obscurity of the topics these articles cover to most English language Misplaced Pages editors. Articles on, say, World War II or the American Civil War, tend to get reviews which go well beyond propose comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree - my sense is, this is the result of the shortcomings of the group (and en.wiki more broadly); we tend to be western Europeans or Americans (apart from our ANZAC contingent), and we tend to focus on mainstream military topics (i.e., the world wars, ACW, Napoleon, etc.). That is to say, there are much lower odds that someone will be well-versed enough in Central/South American issues to pick up on some of the issues Sandy identified with Noriega. That article is also a fairly long one, which tends to discourage reviews, and it's a controversial topic, which does as well. Look at how long Albert Kesselring sat at WP:GAN#WAR before someone picked it up for review the other day. All that is to say that I don't know that the quality of MILHIST A-class reviews has gone down, but these two articles are examples of flaws in the process that have always existed. I'd wager you could go through older articles on "off the beaten path" topics and find examples that have similar issues. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 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 or they relate to non-English-speaking nations. In my experience, the politico-military bios, especially of controversial figures like Noriega or Kesselring are amongst the hardest to write and adequately review, especially the latter if you aren't familiar with the subject area. It is only recently that we introduced a formal source review requirement to ACR, perhaps we need to beef up the guidance there? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is also that it seems to me that a lot of the ACRs being reviewed are done by a small core of reviewers. I know I've personally felt a few times a bit of pressure to go ahead and review a nomination that's been sitting around for months so that it doesn't stagnate, even though I know next to nothing about the subject matter, so I can't drill down all the way. There's also the issue with a lot of ACRs using heavily paywall or print sources, which is understandable. There's a lot of AGF in the process, so if there's errors with the nominator, it might not get caught until someone who just happens to have the book shows up. And it honestly has to be like that; its unaviodable. If my ACR nom at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Missouri Field Battery had to wait around for someone with copies of Forsyth, McGhee, and Johnson's highly obscure books, it'll never get done (I don't have access to a scanner to email a reviewer pages). ACR's not a perfect process, but, bar FAC, it's the most thorough and reliable reviewing process I've been around during my time here. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, I use my mobile phone to take photos of pages in references these days. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Having spent a good deal of time reading (almost) all of the sources in these two cases, I may be in a position to offer some tips ala red flags that you might watch for, and what you might do differently when those red flags present. I accept that these articles (like Kesslring) are different from the typical battle, ship, armament, etc. Be aware of the areas where typical MILHIST strengths might not be enough to reveal issues so that you can take a deeper dive in those cases. MILHIST editors would naturally see things that are "off" in more typical MILHIST content areas, just as I saw things that were "off" wrt Latin America in these articles, which led me to start reading sources. Oddly, the first thing that sent me searching for sources was the strange claim about whether Noriega's parents were married, and him meeting his "brother" in high school; that was culturally off, so I went looking. While searching for info on that, I kept finding more and more issues. The "red flags" indicating a deeper check needed for these articles were: non-English-speaking, intelligence agencies (CIA) involvement (where for sure things are not black and white), controversial political figure within their own country, controversial political figure in English-speaking country (US) as well. The next "red flag" that might have been checked was the amount of reliance on one source: I raise that as something to watch for because we've seen similar in many of the MILHIST bios that have come through FAR. When some of these red flags present, a deeper dive on the sources, with an obligatory source-to-text integrity check, might help. In this case, simply reading the sources is what revealed problems to me that were even beyond what I initially saw. Each time I went to check out one piece, I uncovered something else! I would not expect MILHIST reviewers to know of the cultural or Spanish-language issues that were missed, or that initially triggered me to read deeper, but some of the other problems would have surfaced earlier by reading the sources. Then by the time it hit FAC, I would have been just adding the Spanish-language pieces. Another thing you might do when red flags are triggered is review the talk page. I found these articles so odd that I reviewed talk to see what was happening, and saw multiple editors had fallen away, who had in the past been raising some of the same concerns I saw. And also significantly, I found no presence of Panamanian editors at the article ... indeed, I have yet to find any on Misplaced Pages! And finally, please remember ... you can always drop a note on my talk page if you need help with Spanish sources! HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Military history reviewers (myself included) do often have blindspots around political bias issues. In articles on, say, boats or battles this generally doesn't matter much. However, on articles where there's a political aspect there's a real risk of problematic content not being spotted until FAC when editors with broader expertise consider the article. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

One possible explanation for problems like these is that spot checks are not conducted on editors' noms when those editors have several A-class articles under their belt. This becomes and issue when an editor sheparding the nomination is not the sole author of the article. Because even if that editor was proficient and diligent with the content they added, they might assume that what is already there is fine, and thus it is never checked by anybody. Also ditto for older noms simply not being up to par because our standards and ethos have changed. Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is technically A-class under Milhist (I took it through FAR) but in reality it might not even meet our C-class criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A minimum of spot checks should ideally be done for any article if possible regardless of whether the nominator has previous successful nominations. I always try to. (t · c) buidhe 14:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This Project lost one article, and now another?

Issue: Before the Military History Project loses another article with a “provincially titled war” to the “global American Revolution” (Global-ARW), perhaps this Notice Board can arrive at a Project-wide standard for ARTICLE SCOPE in American Revolution sister articles.

Proposal: This Project should use the mainstream scholarly reference Encyclopædia Britannica to define the scope of sister-articles related to the American Revolution, as composed by Willard M. Wallace, published online 2015 : "American Revolution, (1775-83), insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence and went on to form the United States of America."

Background: Several like-mined wp:editors have successfully wp:MERGED Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783) NOW-REDIRECTS-TO Spain in the American Revolution. They currently attempt to merge Anglo-French War (1778-1783) into France in the American Revolution. --- They opine that all British conflict of the late 1770s is ‘in reality’ the “American Revolutionary War”, substantiated by “vast majorities” found in their browser search hits, and misrepresenting scholars who merely reiterate the overlapping timeline from Spain making war on Britain June 1779, and Yorktown ending Anglo-American campaigning October 1781.

- In article Talk pages, four (4+) months at American Revolutionary War, "Global-ARW wp:editors" argued to recount battles in the article American Revolutionary War that took place elsewhere than America, WITHOUT military consequence to American independence, Congressional knowledge, consent, or any participation by its commissioned officers. "Global-ARW wp:editors" fought for Infobox changes to encompass the global battle casualties in concurrent wars: Anglo-French, Anglo-Spanish, Anglo-Dutch, and Anglo-Mysore.

This can be fairly attributed to a misunderstanding of the oft-quoted Michael Clodfelter 2017, pp. 124-135, who deprecates the “popular” meaning of "Revolutionary War", one limited to the British-subject colonial rebellion or civil war in America, “a tag more popular and also more provincial” (p.124). --- Instead Clodfelter titles his article, "War of the American Revolution: 1775-83" (p.124) to embrace all wars waged upon Britain during that period. In the Clodfelter view, these comprise all formal British belligerents of that time span, American Congress, French and Spanish Bourbons, the Dutch Republic, and the Kingdom of Mysore, India. See the casualty statistics for “that Clodfelter war" and the wp:editor "Global American Revolutionary war" on pages 134-135. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Besides Britannica, one of the ”commonly accepted reference texts”, PROMINENT ADHERENTS for the American Revolution as a civil-war-rebellion among British subjects in North America include thirteen (13) distinguished scholars upheld by the History Pulitzer Prize commission, only one (1) of whom is contested: Bernard Bailyn 1968, Daniel Boorstin 1974, John J. Ellis 2000, Robert Middlekauff 1983, Forrest McDonald 1986, Richard White* 1992, Gordon S. Wood 1993, Lance Banning 1996, Jack Rakove 1997, Joseph J. Ellis 2001, Daniel Richter* 2002, David Hackett Fischer 2005, and Larrie D. Ferreiro* 2007, who is sometimes misinterpreted by wp:editors. :: *-scholar finalists. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Housekeeping

@TheVirginiaHistorian: - may I direct your attention to Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Layout, especially the part about "Avoid excessive use of color and other font gimmicks". Frankly, I find your posts almost unreadable at times with all the underlining/colors/bolding/etc that you employ. You might get more responses if they were less marked up and less lengthy. Just some advice. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll second this. I get put off reading these because of the mess of formatting. Harrias 13:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth and Harrias: Thanks for the heads up. see rewrite below.  Done. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

My copy of the Oxford Companion to Military History has an entry titled "American independence war" which covers the period 1775–1783 and encompasses the loss of the British colonies. However, it includes the expansion of the war into a global one including France and its Spanish ally, and the Dutch, as well as the League of Armed Neutrality. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: my rewrite per redirection (ears boxed) by Ealdgyth and Harrias, (1) The ARW "embraces" Euro great power wars? That sounds upside-down-and-backwards. I thought Euro historiography posited a Anglo-French Second Hundred Years' War, and the ARW fitted inside it, as did the French and Indian War fit inside the Seven Years' War though it also started in North America.

- (2) Stipulated: Wars against Britain expand by belligerents other than the US Congress, and overlapping British civil war in America for 30 months from June 1779 to August 1781; these are Congressional 'co-belligerents' against Britain. But they make war without Congress knowledge, consent, or participation by its commissioned officers. Those Euro great power engagements against Britain during Anglo-American peace negotiations April-November 1782 are against the US national interest (Morris 1983). Any engagements after 30 November 1782 are at odds with the Franco-American 1778 Treaty of Alliance, Art. 8 providing for ending war on Britain after "tacit" British agreement to American independence.

- (3) How does the War for American Independence spread? Nothing points to Congress as the agent spreading war on Britain worldwide. To the contrary, the “Bourbon War of 1778” (Mahon 1890), war was prosecuted against Britain by declared war from France and Spain under the Bourbon Family Pact and their Aranjuez Convention, Articles 5 & 7 for imperial expansion at British expense. Explicit war aims included a Spanish Gibraltar, with additional French possessions in the Caribbean, "as convenient"; their joint plans to invade Jamaica followed. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Table: conflict article scope

Citations

• Clodfelter, Micheal (2017). Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed. McFarland. ISBN 978-1-4766-2585-0.
• Mackesy, Piers (1993) . The War for America 1775-1783. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0803281927.
• Mahan, Alfred Thayer (1890). The influence of sea power upon history, 1660-1783. Boston : Little, Brown and Company.

Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Playing silly buggers

As the Cambridge Dictionary might have it, the preemptory dismissal of one’s social inferiors is playing silly buggers. Here, a wp:editor-cited reference without a link or a direct quote is merely a name-dropped RS, like the toff at a garden party who is ‘attending’ prestigious university, ‘reading’ into a serious field of academic study ‘at lecture’, but without writing a graded research paper or earning a degree there.

(1) In the Oxford Companion to Military History, at “American independence war (1775-83)”, Richard Holmes says page 42, “France now resolved to enter the war on the side of the colonists . The war had changed from civil insurrection to a world war which would engulf the West Indies, Europe, and India," without the Americans referred to in the Holmes article title. Holmes references three scholars.

(2) In Fighting for America: The Struggle for Mastery in North America, 1519-1871, Jeremy Black says on page 114, "American alliance with France and French alliance with Spain “brought the to a new stage as there was no clear guide to the allocation of British resources between the war with the Bourbons and that with the Americans." (Spain did not join France in war for American independence, it refused to sign their Treaty of Alliance.)

(3) In his most recent book British Isles and the War of American Independence Oxford University Press 2003 , Stephen Conway says on page 1, "On 19 April 1775 the constitutional dispute between Britain and its North American colonies finally erupted into open war. For the next 30 months or so, Lord North’s government was able to devote much of the military resources at its disposal to crushing the rebellion." The French "entered the conflict on the side of the new United states, and be came belligerents in early summer of 1778."

In 1779, Conway continues, "the Spanish joined the French," as belligerents against Britain, by the Aranjuez Compact, not for American independence, not on US claimed territory. At the end of 1780, "the Dutch also became enemies of the British. A colonial rebellion had turned into a world war ," not against Congress. In his conclusion on page 354, he says, War against the Americans polarized opinion but then war against the Bourbon powers, "once the Americans departed from the empire", the continuing war against the Bourbons had the effect "of bringing the English, Welsh, Scots, and Irish together in a great British struggle against their European enemies. Important in this respect were the war from 1778." That is, Mahan’s “Bourbon War of 1778” in his Influence of Sea Power on History, 1890. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

More concisely

These authors, both American historians and 'international perspective' Euros, distinguish between two (2) wars against Britain 1778-1783. One (1) is an insurrection by British subjects in North America, one (1) is imperial rivalry by nation-states globally. There is no Congressional revolt made into an ethereal "war spread worldwide" without evidence of human agency. That would "connect dots where there are no connections" as a willful act of ungrounded historiography. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

US Navy Constellation-class frigate

For those interested in military ship classes: Talk:FFG(X)#Move to Constellation-class frigate ?. noclador (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Wilderness result

Can somebody help out at Battle of the Wilderness? People keep changing the result from 'Inconclusive' to 'Strategic Union victory', which I do not believe is supported by the sources (there is some truth but it's a partial explanation at best). The National Park Service calls it "indecisive". –CWenger (^ • @) 12:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Have commented there. Another case of trying to do too much in the infobox with the results field. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this accurate?

There is a dispute about Bangladesh Liberation War infobox. In the discussion I posted some sources to support a India-Bangladesh Joint Command victory:

• "The war ended on December 16, 1971, when Pakistan's Eastern command surrendered in Dhaka to India–Bangladesh joint command with over 93,000 Pakistani (Prisoners of War) POW (Khanna 2007; Burke 1973)." - J.L. Kaul and ‎Anupam Jha, Shifting Horizons of Public International Law: A South Asian Perspective, page 241, Springer, 2018, ISBN 9788132237242
• "On December 1 6, the Pakistan army surrendered to the Joint Command of the Indian and Bangladesh forces." - Salman M. A. Salman and Kishor Uprety, Conflict and Cooperation on South Asia's International Rivers: A Legal Perspective, page 125, World Bank Publications, 2002, ISBN 9780821353523
• "The liberation war of Bangladesh was transformed into a full - scale war between the joint forces of Bangladesh and India on the one side and the Pakistani Army on the other on 3 December 1971 . Pakistan surrendered to the joint command of Bangladesh and Indian forces on 16 December 1971" - Muinul Islam and ‎Nitai Chandra Nag, Economic Integration in South Asia: Issues and Pathways, Pearson Education India, 2010, ISBN 9788131729458
• "The liberation war reached its culmination in a full-scale conventional war between Pakistan and the joint forces of India and Bangladesh." - Samuel Totten and ‎William Spencer Parsons, Centuries of Genocide: Essays and Eyewitness Accounts, page 249, Routledge, 2013, ISBN 9780415871914
• "This followed the signing of an instrument of surrender on 16 December 1971, between Lieutenant-General AAK Niazi of the Pakistani Armed Forces and Lieutenant-General Jagjit Singh Aurora, who had served as the Commander-in-Chief of Indian and Bangladeshi forces in East Pakistan." - Tom Ruys, Olivier Corten, Alexandra Hofer, The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-based Approach, page 170, Oxford University Press, 2018, ISBN 9780198784357
• "Pakistan's Lt-General A.A.K. Niazi (Commander of Eastern Command) and his deputy, Vice-Admiral M.S. Khan signed the Instrument of Surrender to a joint command of Indian and the Mukti Bahini forces in Dhaka." - Bill K. Koul, The Exiled Pandits of Kashmir, page 254, Palgrave Macmillan, 2020, ISBN 9789811565373
• "Pakistani forces surrender to India-Bangladesh joint command. - Bangladesh Documents (Volume 2), pages 550, 688, 693, Ministry of External Affairs, India, 1971
• "After a short but brutal civil war , the West Pakistani military surrendered to a joint command of Bangladesh and Indian forces on December 16 , 1971 , and Bangladesh achieved freedom." - Karl R. DeRouen, ‎Paul Bellamy, International Security and the United States, page 85, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008, ISBN 9780275992545
• "Aurora offered security and prisoner-of-war status to all those and others who wished to be repatriated and who surrendered to the Joint Command." - Verinder Grover, Political System in Pakistan: Pakistan-India relations (Volume 7), Deep & Deep, 1995, ISBN 9788171007400
• "A Joint Command of the Indian Armed Forces and the Mukti Bahini of Bangladesh was set up on December 10 , 1971 . Swift was the joint action of the Indian Armed Forces and the Mukti Bahini from December 4 to December 16 , 1971." - S. K. Chakrabarti, The Evolution of Politics in Bangladesh: 1947-1978, page 214, Associated, 1978
• "Pakistani prisoners of war surrendered to a joint command of India and Mukti Bahini, and, therefore, Mr. Mujibur Rahman holds a veto over their release even if India wants to release them." - Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Interviews to the Press, December 20, 1971-August 13, 1973 page 10, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Directorate of Research, Reference & Publications, Government of Pakistan, 1973
• "It is contended that Pakistan forces in the Eastern sector surrendered to the Joint Command of India and Bangladesh forces." - Mehrunnisa Ali, Readings in Pakistan Foreign Policy, 1971-1978, page 79, Oxford University Press, 2001, ISBN 9780195793932
• "The war had ended with the surrender of about 90,000 Pakistani soldiers in the eastern sector at Dacca on 17 December 1971 to the Joint Command of the Indian army and Bangladesh's Mukti Bahni." - Avtar Bhasin, India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds, page 224, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018, ISBN 9789386826213
• "A total of 91,596 prisoners surrendered to the joint command of India and Bangladesh." - Maj Gen Sukhwant Singh, India's Wars Since Independence The Liberation Of Bangladesh (Volume 1), page 198, Lancer Publishers, 1980, ISBN 9781935501602
• "On 16th December the Pakistani forces in the eastern sector surrendered to the joint command of the Indian Army and the Mukti Bahini in Dhaka." - P. K. Bandyopadhyay, The Bangladesh Dichotomy and Politicisation of Culture, page 19, B.R. Publishing Corporation, 2004, ISBN 9788176464253

But Azuredivay believes these citations doesn't accurately support a India-Bangladesh Joint Command victory. Is that so?

P.S. It would be highly helpful if you post your opinion ("yes" or "no" or anything) to the article talk page. Aditya 04:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking back, this rather large list of cites and quotes are looking like nothing but a big wall of text. Apologising. It was probably not helpful at all. Please, forgive. Aditya 05:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Just keep the discussion on the article talk page thanks, there is no need for this long list of sources when they are already listed there. The purpose of posting here should only be to draw our collective attention to the discussion, not to rehash arguments or put one side. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to second Peacemaker, keep this on the article talk page. If you want to seek other editors' views, post a neutrally-worded invitation to the discussion (and then listen to those editors who do join the discussion). Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Requeste to move List of wars series

• Due to the dispute we had on the Talk:List of wars: 2003–present, one reviewer has decided to make requests moves. These requests would involve every "List of wars" list into the brand new "List of conflicts" title. Since these requests moves would rename eight lists and a category in one consensus; it's better to invite other people from Milhist to have a look. Please have a look into this discussion and you are always welcome to join this discussion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Are extermination camps a type of internment?

Please see the RFC at Talk:Internment#RfC: are extermination camps a subset of concentration camps? (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Naming nameless engagements

Muwatallis II recently put a nicely written article, Action of 3 October 1624 up for review. In reviewing it for B class (It is, although review's not complete), I asked if there were a clearer name for the engagement. Muwarallis indicated that there is no other name. Sea battles are not my specialty, but it strikes me that identifying one only by its date is not tremendously helpful to the typical encyclopedia user we are supposedly writing for. Is there any convention for naming engagements like this that have nothing but a date to identify them? If there is (as I suspect) none, does anyone have a suggestion for one? Lineagegeek (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I have always wondered about this, and whether at a minimum, it should be "Naval action of 3 October 1624", as the title doesn't even provide that information. An alternative might be "Fooian/Foish naval action of 3 October 1624", although this would be complicated if there were more than two belligerents. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

If no common name is available (or a translation of one), I suggest include location and/or the war this engagement was a part of in the article name. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This caught my eye. No real opinion, but note that "location" of sea battles unless close to some land feature is very abstract. I'd lean to the suggestion just above and at least define it as a naval engagement as that explains a bit. So many big naval engagements took place in a specific geographic area, "Coral Sea" for example, even if out of sight of land that we may forget many took place far at sea where the geographic area is a vast ocean. That said, the article in question, does not even come close to such geographic fog. Galleys were in action off Sardinia. Even if not used in references I'd see clarification in "Naval action of 3 October 1624 off San Pietro Island, Sardinia" or just "Naval action of 3 October 1624 off Sardinia". Palmeira (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Big gap in our coverage (NATO)

So I just created NATO forces in Poland and as far as I can tell it is the first and only article we have on NATO military presence in a particular country. Another topic we also have very poorly covered are NATO exercises (see List of NATO exercises/Category:NATO military exercises; German category at de:Kategorie:NATO-Übung is much better...). It is really surprising how bad our coverage of the recent events is, outside of the famous ones like some Middle East real combat operations. Do we have any taksforce or such which is taking care of this topic area? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, they would fall into the Cold-War and Post-Cold-War taskforces, but they aren't particularly active. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've started a draft on Exercise Spring Train whose 1982 edition was important in the Falklands War preparations. Does anyone know when it stopped running? The last reference to an exercise I can find is 1989, I presume it ended with the Cold War and has been supplanted by Exercise Joint Warrior - Dumelow (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

List of U.S. Department of Defense code names lists a large number of the NATO Cold War exercises; I tracked down some information on Active Edge, and Arkin 2005 lists most of the relevant exercise names. I've just noticed that "Display Determination" is not there, but "Destined Glory" is. I continue adding to the DOD code names list, and Arkin 2005 is the source for the names; the data can mostly be found on the Net once one has the name. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just added 'Battle Royal' (1954) from the I BE Corps article to the NATO exercises list. As all the exercise designations are in DOD format, laid down by Joint Staff, my master page is actually the DOD page rather than the NATO page. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Dumelow thank you for your work on now-Exercise Spring Train!! Please add it to List of U.S. Department of Defense code names. Note "Spring Train" was Royal Navy unilateral, not NATO. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot06, I've added it to the DoD list. I think I picked up the NATO connection from Koburger (1983) who wrote: "Considerably assisting the navy in its own mobilization was the happy accident of having some of its ships already at top line , at Gibraltar for exercises (NATO's "Spring Train") in the Mediterranean" - Dumelow (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing/broken ref final sweep

Following Headbomb's now archived post, I figured I'd repost the remaining GAs that still have broken harv refs. We're actually rather close to getting through these so if some folks could each do one or two more we should be good: Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

GAs

1. Bali Strait Incident
2. Battle of Osijek
3. Black Dahlia
4. Black September
5. Bobbili Fort
6. Boulogne agreement
7. Capitulation of Saldanha Bay
8. Caracalla
9. Christian Streit White
10. Cipher Bureau (Poland)
11. Croatian War of Independence
12. Emeric, King of Hungary
13. Ernest Lucas Guest
14. Frank McGee (ice hockey)
15. Franklin D. Roosevelt
16. Franz Kurowski
17. History of cannon
18. History of the United States Navy
19. HMS Hermione (1782)
20. Homs
21. Humphrey Atherton
22. Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin
23. Huolongjing
24. Indonesian National Revolution
25. Isaac Parsons (American military officer)
26. James Caudy
27. John Cunningham (RAF officer)
28. Kaloyan of Bulgaria
29. Leonid Brezhnev
30. Mise of Amiens
31. Monarch-class coastal defense ship
32. Mulan (1998 film)
33. Operation Summer '95
34. Oswald Boelcke
35. Philip III of Navarre
36. Pons, Count of Tripoli
37. Prince Marko
38. Raid on Batavia (1806)
39. Richard Garnons Williams
40. Robert White (Virginia physician)
41. Rommel myth
42. Saab JAS 39 Gripen
43. Sajmište concentration camp
44. Second Battle of Naktong Bulge
45. Siege of Damascus (1148)
46. Siege of Melos
47. Siege of Pondicherry (1793)
48. Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia
49. The Great Naktong Offensive
50. The Holocaust in Albania
51. Third Anglo-Maratha War
52. Bethlehem
53. World War II
54. Treblinka extermination camp
55. Wings (1927 film)
56. Home Army
57. Napoleon
58. House of Lancaster
59. Battle of the Plains of Abraham
60. USS Texas (BB-35)
61. Samuel Colt
62. USS Kentucky (BB-66)
63. Operation Storm
64. Hans-Ulrich Rudel
65. USS Lunga Point
66. USS Salamaua
67. Walls of Constantinople
68. Stanisław Koniecpolski
69. USS Cincinnati (CL-6)
70. Frank Worsley
71. USS Tucker (DD-374)
72. Michael I Komnenos Doukas
73. Alexander Godley
74. Crusades
75. Paddy Finucane
76. Roza Shanina
77. SS Black Osprey
78. Uprising of Ivaylo
79. Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II
80. Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628
81. Skanderbeg's Italian expedition
82. First Battle of Naktong Bulge
83. Battle of P'ohang-dong
84. Battle of Masan
85. Battle of Haman
86. Battle of Nam River
87. Teuruarii IV
88. Battle of Huoyi
89. Franz Kurowski
90. Myth of the clean Wehrmacht

Just looking at Monarch-class coastal defense ship and I think I need Sturmvogel 66's help. You added a ref to Sieche p250 in April this year, I see there's several publications it might be. Could you add the right one to the References section? Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, I've struck it from the list - Dumelow (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, you can use Petscan to run a query to list articles with template:good article and the MILHIST banner on the talk page that are also in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. It throws up 103 articles. Some may be false positives that have already been discounted but some will be from the bottom end of the alphabet that User:Headbomb didn't get to before. If you remove the good article requirement you can get a list of 3,800 MILHIST articles in the error category - Dumelow (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dumelow: - From a quick spot checks in there, it looks like the 103 is a mix of both. The false positives should be easy-ish to sort out manually, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I've had a quick sweep through and think there are 39 which were not already covered or false positives and added these to the list above - Dumelow (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Good topic nomination

I would be grateful to any project member with a moment to spare who cast their eye over this nomination for a good topic. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Status of Images

Can someone enlighten me as to the copyright status of the following images? Are they good to go for Commons and what copyright tag should I use? Thanks in advance.--Catlemur (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo taken in the Soviet embassy in Stockholm on 2 February 1944 2 3 4

Pul-e-Charkhi Airfield

Has anyone heard of Pul-e-Charkhi Airfield?

The article was created 9 years ago, it's unreferenced except for a generic Air Force Historical Research Agency link but i found nothing there.

The coordinates given show some sort of signals intelligence base not far from the Pul-e-Charkhi prison.

Gavbadger (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

In view of the free hand the creator of this page took with sources before he was banned for multiple copyvios, and the fact that the airfield only seems to exist in the Wiki article and mirror sites, I doubt its existence. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggest it's possibly an Air Force linked signals intelligence activity? That could have meant Bwmoll3 found some kind of garbled reference to it.. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that the source is to the AFHRA, and is supposedly copied from public domain materials there, given that when I search for it there, I get this, I have my doubts, too. No Google books hits that I can find for an airport there: I'm just getting the prison, the neighborhood, and a small military outpost of some sort there. Also doubting that this exists. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

So maybe where this came from was the small military outpost (SIGINT site?)'s helicopter landing zone? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. Whatever this is, the sum of everyone here's research suggests this isn't notable and is probably misleading, so I've prodded the article with a link to this discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the British DX Club the base is actually home to Radio Afghanistan which was rebuilt in 2003. So i agree with the deletion Gavbadger (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If it does exist, it isn't on the map. --Danre98 21:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Rant time!

"But the Wiki isn't a forum!" yeah yeah, I know, you don't have to shove a WP:Something in my face like a common robot. As a matter of fact I've always hated that, talk to me like a person would, the Wiki has enough bots as it is.

I just want to say that I'm disheartened and demoralized, and I really should take a break. I poured hundreds of thousands of bytes into a subject I'm passionate about, but I feel like I have that much more work ahead still, at least. My Transylvanian roots spurred my interest into the Battle of Transylvania of WW1, and soon afterwards, I discovered a lackluster niche that I knew I could make a meaningful contribution to: the entire Romanian Campaign of WW1. But...It increasingly feels like too much for a single person. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the spell-checkers and the like who trim my articles to make sure they're better, but these are generalist things. I really wish that more would be interested, because there is still so much to do, and I can't do this constantly. What's the rush, you may ask? Well, the articles already existing when I started my work had been like that - in their quasi-stub state and with neglected accuracy - for years. For instance, for years, people could see the Battle of Transylvania before I started working on it and see in the infobox the blatant lie that 440,000 Romanians opposed 70,000 Austro-Hungarians. That 70,000 is the Romanian estimate, by no means the actual number, which was 34,000. The Romanians also numbered somewhat less, 369,000. Worse still, it failed to account for changes in the forces. By mid-September it was the Central Powers outnumbering the Romanians. And this is just one instance. I genuinely fear that the BS has been allowed to dwell for so many years, that all my work has been too little and too late, as people believe this stuff by now. And I personally do not understand this neglect. Once you dig into it a bit, you realize that the Battle of Transylvania had global importance: it induced the change of the German Chief of Staff, it created conditions for the creation of a German-led joint command of the Central Powers and it caused all German offensives on all other fronts to be halted. Transylvania became quite literally the top German priority, thus, why the short shrifts? Please, stop treating this battle like a footnote of WW1, because, it ain't. And it's this precise treatment that led to this deplorable situation. Even as it stands right now, the BoT article may well be obsolete. The Romanian 1st Army was the weakest of the Romanian armies invading Transylvania, and took the least amount of territory. Yet, look at all the tens of thousands of bytes required to cover the actions of it alone during this battle!

Now despite my rant, I don't really fault anyone for not taking on this subject. Finding good sources and putting it all together surely is a daunting task. I myself needed weeks to gather the materials for the Battle of Nagyszeben alone. Plus that some of the sources themselves are full of it, and one needs to be careful. A particularly egregious example is a book I found on Google Books, stating among others that the Romanians were driven from Transylvania by 28 September! 28 September! When the Romanians still occupied a third of the region! I just...needed to vent. I know this kinda breaks the rules, but, after all my work, haven't I earned this much? I really should take a break, but, do I afford to? Who else is going to write it as it was in my absence? I'm tired... Transylvania1916 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your rant, Transylvania1916. Many of us no doubt feel these factors - I certainly do. People who've put your kind of effort in deserve 3,000 bytes on a *talk* page, yes. When you're feeling tired, when you can, step away and take a break. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with the occasional rant, and thoroughly impressed by the work you have done on a subject where most of us wouldn't know where to start. (Consider writing it up for the Bugle.) We all find the appearance of crap on Misplaced Pages disheartening; my personal favourite is Bushveldt Carbineers, an article which has stubbornly remained a stub since it was created in 2004, but which claimed the unit was "recognised as the worlds first modern Special forces" from 2008 until 2015 when an IP deleted the claim with the edit summary "removed ridiculous unsubstantiated claim". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I am sympathetic to your feelings. I edit a lot in post-colonial African military history, and the number of users who frequently do that could be counted on one hand. That said, you're as obligated to drop everything to bail out African milhist as I am to scramble over to the Balkans and sort out World War I (did almost do that once). It can be frustrating to scroll through the A-class noms and think "Another American space man?" but this is just all of us doing our own small parts to build up the encyclopedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

GAR notice

HMS Hermione (1782), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC for Talk:Battle of Arras (1940)

@A D Monroe III: An interesting question of minutiae has arisen. It occurred to me that since numbers are not connected to languages, it is a mistake to hyphenate them when attached to non-English terms. An example is Fliegerkorps VIII and Fliegerkorps VIII; A. D. Monroe demurs and I wonder if there is any WP on such a matter? Keith-264 (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I doubt there is any specific guidance making such an odd distinction, but even if there was, it would need to be changed. Having the numeral un-italicized makes it look like it's not part of the italicized unit name. Numbers are connected to languages; each language pronounces them differently; VIII is ocht in German, not "eight" as it would be if it were English. Just because a foreign language word looks the same as a possible English translation is zero reason not to ensure readers understand it as part of a foreign phrase. There's simply no reason to treat the number in a military unit's name as somehow separate. --A D Monroe III 21:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You're still missing the point, VIII looks the same when written in any language, italicising it is pointless. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The point is the reader. Italicizing it keeps it semantically with the name, thus is helpful to the reader, so not italicizing it is not only pointless, but harmful. --A D Monroe III 20:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Roman numerals are a particular problem, since, being letters in other contexts, this can create garden-path sentences. Qwirkle (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Polite request to u:Transylvania1916

Between "Infantry Attacks" and your rant about demotivation, please, take Hawkeye7's request as seconded by me, and do write another rant for the Bugle!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am interested, for sure, but I don't know the procedure. Where do I write it exactly? Do I just use the wizard like when I create an article? Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My guess is to draw up something in your userspace, and then the coordinators can decide to run it as an interview or such. A user subpage is gonna be the best spot, as it's not gonna be an attempt at an article, so it should be kept out of the regular article/draft spaces or even the template. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So my sandbox will do? Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep. That's honestly probably the perfect place for it. The Bugle sometimes runs an interview with an editor column, so it could get run in there. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggest, Transylvania1916, that there could have been a dead senior commander on the battlefield, but "friction" and other factors meant that the period accounts mixed up divisional commanders, separate brigade commanders, regimental commanders etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Please free free to use excellent new photographs by Ed Gold

Hi, military historians. I have been assisting the photojournalist Ed Gold to upload sets of his photographs to Misplaced Pages Commons. He was embedded with 2 PARA from July 2010 to July 2011 and went on tour with them in Helmand. The 90 or so photos he has given CC BY-SA 4.0 licenses to are stunning, in my opinion, and could be incorporated in several articles but especially 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, obviously. The easiest link to them is "here to the category".. Ask me if you need any advice on the details, for example for captions. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That's awesome, Michael, but they really should have more detail about the subjects and dates in the file descriptions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ed Gold is IRL off-the-grid and I'm glad I've been able to help him upload his stunning work under the best license for sharing. Together, he and I hope to upload perhaps hundreds more of his images and we are doing so one Project at a time (see his article for other Projects). You military historians were lucky this was the first full batch we completed. Under the circumstances, you will appreciate his inability to provide more than a scant detail on any one image. To get more detail, work from the source(s) linked in his article — or look at his website. If you get stuck with a particular image you have definitely decided to include in an article, put it in anyway and ping me or comment on my talk page and I'll seek the details you need direct from Ed. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

FAC needing an additional review/source review

G'day all, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Arthur Sullivan (Australian soldier)/archive1 has two supports but needs an additional reviewer and a source review. NB: my nom. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As a newby would I be able to be a volunteer?OyMosby (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've claimed a slot for the source review; should be able to handle that tomorrow. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Noted. OyMosby (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, we're good now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

A-Class Review needs attention

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Missouri Field Battery needs the attention of several more editors in order to complete it; please feel free to review. Disclaimer: My nomination. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Strategic Air Command in the United Kingdom has two reviews, source and image reviews. Needs just one more review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a co-nom

Anybody interested in co-nomming Manned Orbiting Laboratory at FAC? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Hawkeye7: I would, but I'm not going to be able to access most of the offline sources, and I can't really say I've made much of a contribution to that one. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• No problem at all! The article has little in the way of offline sources, and I'm willing do all the work. I just need someone to sign on a s a co-nominator. You know you want to. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm down, then. I won't claim any credit for this, but I'll help with comments as I can. I don't have an open FAC at the moment, so it's not an issue for me. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Excellent! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Commendation : u:User:EnigmaMcmxc

I would like to draw to the attention of this project's members the writing of EnigmaMcmxc at 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) for the writeup of the background and history of the British Army of the Rhine in the 1960s and 1970s, leading into the five-battle group divisional org of the 1970s, which now can be re-copied over and added to BAOR and many other relevant articles!! Thank you very much!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Well done, Enigma! Having reviewed the article, it is a great summary, and will be of great benefit to the project. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989

Last month User:Fram nominated a series of articles for mass deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle. Now he has started to nominate the articles of his earlier mass deletion request for deletion again; starting with: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989. noclador (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I started the second batch with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination), which ended in delete. Considering that the deletion is listed in the milhist article alerts and multiple members of this project already commented, what was the purpose of this extra notice? Fram (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

AfD: Daniel Gade

There is a Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion regarding an article about LTC Daniel Gade (USA, Ret.), who is, among other things, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Virginia.

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gade
• Daniel Gade
• 2020 United States Senate election in Virginia

Your perspectives and participation in the AfD would be helpful IMHO. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Livonian War

Hey everyone, I was at MOS and I found out at MOS:OSNS that in continatal Europe they switched from Old Style to New Style and I found out that the Livonian War (an A) was fought between Catholics who later changed their calender, Russians thus Orthodox and Protestant nations like Denmark–Norway and Sweden. Since the UK still used Old Style until 1 September 1752 it's not clear which calender the article uses. The nominator of the ARC back in 2011 is since 2018 offline; I guess they won't help us. Does anyone know more than I do? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press