Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Unreliable web sources

Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.

{{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input}}

This seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this? Setergh (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree to some extent.

:Maybe keep the article but maybe add "a dubious battle used by the kurds as propanganda" Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, The article is cited by so many kurdish websites or sources, marked as a kurdish claim there isn't even a single book (English or western source) or academic source that is cited there, It talks about a battle that happened during the 1980s Which means During Iran Iraq War, There are so many scholars and plenty of books that described the war with it's operations, battles, etc.. and I don't think they have mentioned the "Battle of Hamek" in anywhere, Otherwise users would have added it in some redirect or a create a new page with it. On the other hand it gave off some type of Exaggeration, additionally one of Wikipedia policy is that you should use verified sources or scholarly sources, the article hasn't got any of that.. I suggest we nominate this article for deletion. Best R3YBOl (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Would not suggest delete, but instead mark it as a propaganda myth from the kurds Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Well this is not the first article that these sources were used, and it's not the first article that was made without Reliable sources, You can see these list of articles that also was made, For example this page Penjwen Revolt the Kurdish sources itself describe this revolt as a Suppressed revolt,I hope if some Administrators check this article additionally with these articles:Battle of Haj Omran (1966), Kirkuk executions (1991), Sulaymaniyah massacre, and Displacement of Arabs in Kirkuk under KRG administration. I am not trying to accuse anyone personally, but it's worth nothing that the user who created Penjwen Revolt and created other articles I mentioned, and there appears to be a possible pattern of battleground mentality or POV-pushing in their editing behavior, A closer review might be necessary. R3YBOl (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree. Tonnes of POV-pushing in kurdish related topics. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Would like to state that I've seen the creator of this page on other sides, and it's clear why he makes them (nationalist purposes). Although this doesn't always mean that the pages are unreliable, in this case it seems to definitely be for Kurd nationalism purposes rather than helping out Wikipedia. Setergh (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Not exactly sure how one can do this though? I mean, I don't know any issue template as such, and we can't state this without a source. Setergh (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Setergh@R3YBOl Wikipedia:Dashboard

:Update:

:The creator of the article, User:Gueevkobani appears to be affiliated with the Kurds and may have potential COI. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, I see that. Setergh (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Setergh|Thehistorianisaac|R3YBOl}} There are several noticeboards where matters such as these can be posted to get administrator and even community consensus. One of the more general administrator noticeboards might be an appropriate one to report this. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and subdivisions such as incidents for the right one. Note the guidelines for posting and user talk page notice to a user being reported.

:::In addition to administrator noticeboards, for more general information on other noticeboards, as well see Wikipedia:Dashboard. Many of the of the topics listed in addition to the administrator boards seem to be single topic notice boards. I am not sure whether these are directly related to the main administrator notice boards. I also am not sure it is appropriate to list on several of these with respect to several problems caused by the same editor. In any event, these appear to include Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard It seems to me that this is the type of situation where trying to resolve issues on talk pages would be futile.

:::Note that while I am familiar with the existence of these noticeboards, I have almost no experience in using or commenting on them in nearly 15 years on Wikipedia. I am just bringing these to your attention, especially since some further action may be needed and you may wish to, and to be in the best position due to your familiarity with the problems, to take the action by reporting with the facts and your observations. This problem seems to require administrator attention and handling to make any real progress with it.Donner60 (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::{{@MILHIST}} Adding this note in case anyone will want to add to or correct what I wrote above - or in case you may want to pursue this in some way. This type of problem is not novel, of course. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for the advice! I had asked on the (biggest) Wikipedia discord and I was told to go here, hence why I did. Setergh (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::A user on Reddit claims to have written this article: https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1j8qah3/comment/mi0nzdg/ Fernweh0 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I see that. I also see posts like "Can someone gives me names of battle between the Kurdistan Region and Iraq which ended in a kurdish victory? I need it for an edit", so I find it quite clear that the user who made the article about Hamek may not be trying to serve Wikipedia's best interests to begin with. Setergh (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Upon looking at the article, it’s pretty evident that this is the case. Lots of subjective language (resolute defense, unwavering resolve, courageous Peshmergas, etc.) and referring to the Iraqi side as “the enemy”. I’m going to place an encyclopedic language template, even if we are reworking the article to a propaganda battle there still is quite a bit of language to change. Tylermack999 (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Another thought: the idea that ~12 militants fended off a superior force of around 8,000 WITH helicopter support is incredibly dubious. At the very least, why would the Iraqi forces have withdrawn if they had such a large force and had only taken 87 casualties (62 killed, 25 wounded according to the article)? You would think they would've at least attempted to besiege the village considering they supposedly "surrounded it". Everything about the details of the battle seem either massively exaggerated or come off as outright fiction. Tylermack999 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve taken a quick surveillance pass across the article; it does appear more as a minor footnote, and some of the language does suggest a particular point of view. That being said, unlinked articles from the battle article given in the header suggest some truth to what’s being reported, primarily within the greater context of the apparent Destruction of Kurdish villages during the Iraqi Arabization campaign which matches the year given. Under the circumstances, it may be more appropriate to redirect the article here for more context and better references. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:May have misunderstood, but have you found any better references to be exact? I don't fully understand what you mean by matching whatever year given, and I still have no clue what reliable sources may mention such a battle. Setergh (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Apologies for the misunderstanding and apparent confusion here. The linked article in the header is given as Battle of Hamek, it claims that pershmergas fought Iraqi Baathist soldiers in 1982. According to the internet, Hamek is a village in the vicinity of kirkut. According to the article on kirkut, it was part of a major ethnic cleansing campaign from about the mid 70s to the late 80s (figure c.75-c.89). This fits the time frame the alleged battle occurred, suggesting that the battle may have been part of larger and then ongoing destruction of the Kurdish villages during the Iraqi arabization campaign. If so, then the article could be safely redirected to one of the Iraqi arabization pages to better cover the content. A further look back into the article history though shows that the article could have been hijacked, it’s first edits are about a more ancient battle, and a thread on Reddit [https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1j8qah3/battle_of_hamek_where_11_peshmerga_massacred_an/] suggests there could be a copyright violation here as well. In short, we could redirect it, but if we are keeping it we need to roll up our sleeves and do a lot more work to either polish the article or better source the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749049266}}

I've been asking this for quite some time already, but I think i should ask again:

Can Chinese ship emblems be uploaded? Currently, to avoid any issues I just add an external media template.

But seeing how military insignia fall under the PRC copyright law's article 5(" laws and regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs, other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof;"), may I ask again if navy ship emblems can be uploaded or at least given non free fair use? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{@MILHIST}} can I hear your opinions pls? obviously a external media template is fine, but it would be much better to have the ship badge itself Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't believe that miscellaneous navy images would fall under Article 5; that language is pretty narrowly tailored, unlike US copyright law that exempts "[any] work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties" from copyright protection. Many countries have language similar to the PRC's, and as far as I understand, it has always been interpreted much more narrowly. They generally only apply to literal laws, government proclamations, etc., not anything that the government creates. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean in navy insignia. Military insignia is under it if I remember correctly, so why not navy ship insignia Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't believe either of those would be covered by Article 5. Where did you read that it applies to those? Parsecboy (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nearly every single military/government insignia file cites article 5. Idk if it is the template but that's what happened Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Just because people are using a template doesn't mean they're using it correctly ;) There are probably millions of incorrectly licensed images on Commons because people either do not understand or do not care about copyright law. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I understand, but it's used on practically every insignia on wikipedia. If i remember correctly, I think I was also told the same thing by another user on wikimedia commons help desk. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Article 5 states ", other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature and the official translations thereof; "

:::::::I think this can be interpreted as(or has been interpreted as) including insignia and emblems of military units, gov agencies and so on. What matters is whether navy ships insignia should also receive the same treatment of mil unit insignia. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't see any way that a unit logo could be interpreted to be an "administrative document". We're talking about the equivalent of laws, executive orders, judicial decisions, etc. If the Chinese government intended to make any work produced by itself to be free of copyright, they would have said so. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Agree with Parsecboy. The wording seems to specifically refer to written documents. CMD (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::https://web.archive.org/web/20250225115857/http://gjw.gxzf.gov.cn/xwdt/gzdt/t12660000.shtml - Guangxi Regional Department of veteran affairs on the Guangxi's emblem - it cites the PLAN account on Weixin for the photos

:::::::::https://web.archive.org/web/20250222074401/https://gfjy.ahnews.com.cn/gfsp/con/2023-04/24/3613_824304.html - Anhui Provincial national defense education office on ship emblems - it says the source is the Chinese military on weixin but never explicitly mentions the photos. The text at the bottom says "all use of photos without permission is not allowed", however this is not elaborated further.

:::::::::Same article as above is also found on beijing daily https://news.bjd.com.cn/2023/04/23/10408220.shtml, which also cites the chinese military on weixin. Beijing daily copyright statement(https://www.bjd.com.cn//common/about.html?name=%E7%89%88%E6%9D%83%E5%A3%B0%E6%98%8E) states(my simplified translated version):

:::::::::# All media on the beijing daily website is subject to PRC copyright law

:::::::::# If content on beijing daily is used for commercial or advertising purposes, there must be written permission first and there must also be attribution.

:::::::::# without permission, no media or individual can copy or recreate stuff from the beijing daily website

:::::::::I sort of have problems finding the PLAN on weixin, if not any account on weixin as I don't have the app, which basically leads us to a dead end.

:::::::::Ultimately, the main goal is to find the PLAN's written copyright.

:::::::::Additionally, may I ask if it turns out that the article 5 thing has been misinterpreted(most insignia images do come from sources where article 5 does apply, e.g. the PAP flag, and I doubt that this article 5 has been misused considering the scale that it has been used), then would the entirety of Chinese government agency and military unit insignias need to be removed?

:::::::::Personally, I sort of doubt article 5 has been misused, considering the scale of which it was used, and that even though it seems to refer primarily to written documents, i think insignia technically counts in both section 1 and 2. It likely does not apply to government photos(e.g. MOD website photos) but i think insignia are not really covered properly here. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Chipmunkdavis@Parsecboy

:::::::::https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China.svg

:::::::::PRC flag also cites article 5. Again, may be someone using it wrongly, and I do agree that the wording sounds like it was meant for written articles, but I'm starting to really doubt the extent of misuse here.

:::::::::Additionally, on wording, PRC copyright law article 3 states it also applies to photographic works in section 3. So even though it is worded for written documents, the copyright law also applies to photos. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The national and PAP flags likely do not meet the Commons:Commons:Threshold of originality, so should be fine. The use of a licence of Commons does not imply it is right, licences are misapplied on Commons all the time. Copyright does apply to photos, but that doesn't affect Article 5. Article 3 defines 作品, whereas Article 5 is about specific 具, which is clearly a subset. CMD (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Thehistorianisaac - I see you've been editing here for a couple of years; I've been here for 19, and have been active in the copyright space for more than a decade. Believe me when I tell you that misuse of copyright tags is rampant. A particular favorite of mine is the assumption that because we don't know the identity of some European image now, the photo was published anonymously 80 years ago, so {{tl|PD-EU-no author disclosure}} applies. No, that's not what the law requires; they have to have been published anonymously originally, which is generally very difficult to prove (i.e., how do you know what the original publication is?)

:::::::::::In your situation, just because some part of the Chinese government produced an image does not mean that it's automatically PD. Again, if they had intended to make a blanket rule like you interpret Article 5 to mean, they would have simply said as much. I realize that's not the answer you want, and frankly, there are plenty of cases where I've been frustrated by stupid copyright law (for example, paintings by Willy Stöwer without a definitive date of publication may still be copyrighted in the US, despite the fact that they've been out of copyright in Germany for over two decades, which means I can't use them). It is what it is, unfortunately. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I understand. I also agree with the fact that not all Chinese government produced images are PD, and I do agree that misuse of tags is very rampant. But as @Chipmunkdavis, there is threshold of originality, which may apply to some of the [https://web.archive.org/web/20250222074401/https://gfjy.ahnews.com.cn/gfsp/con/2023-04/24/3613_824304.html ship emblems], especially Chinese frigate Xuzhou's [https://web.archive.org/web/20250222074529im_/https://gfjy.ahnews.com.cn/gfsp/pic/2023-04/24/824304_bc2c5ae1-a402-48c8-b1bd-03ab79642c69.png emblem] or Chinese frigate Xianning's [https://web.archive.org/web/20250222074501im_/https://gfjy.ahnews.com.cn/gfsp/pic/2023-04/24/824304_db2d0ecd-1e0a-4da3-98a9-81f9d38c1331.png emblem].

::::::::::::Additionally, correct me if I am wrong, but does commons have special copyright rules on insignia, and are navy ship insignias covered by them? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I don't see how either of those emblems would be under the threshold of originality, they're quite complex. I don't think Commons has special copyright rules on insignia, why would it? CMD (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Good luck convincing Commons users of that; in my experience they wildly misunderstand where the threshold of originality lies and think everything falls below it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Ok thanks. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I've come across some categorisation which is bothering me somewhat. For example:

• Lewis Halliday, a Royal Marine, is categorised as :Category:Royal Navy recipients of the Victoria Cross. It looks like all Royal Marine recipients are included in that category—in my opinion mistakenly. Halliday's case seems to date all the way back to 2008.
• Ernest John Spooner, a Royal Navy rear-admiral I came across recently, is categorised as :Category:Royal Navy admirals of World War II, despite not being an admiral. It seems that British flag officer of the era has been dumped in that category regardless of their actual rank—again, mistakenly in my opinion.

I know that American subjects have more specific categories, for example :Category:United States Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients (for the marine example) and :Category:United States Navy rear admirals.

So which is right? Or is their a third way? Comment welcome. I've had a look to see if there's anything on the project page on this or in the archives but did not get very far. —Simon Harley (Talk). 08:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think if there is a subcategory that would certainly be better. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::On a historical note, before 1918, Royal Marine VC recipients had the blue naval ribbon rather than the crimson military one (agree that Marines ought to be in a subcategory of the RN recipients). Alansplodge (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

(In case you are wondering why I am posting this question here and not WP:LE, it is because the Border defense corps was manned by PAP personnel(though it was under the command of the MPS), were treated as active service military personnel and were overall of a paramilitary nature. Also WP:LE is practically dead anyways.)

So, I plan to make an article on People's Armed Police {{Ill|Border Defense Corps (China)|lt=Border Defense Corps|zh|公安边防部队}} Private Yao Yuanjun (姚元军) and police dog K9 "Big Wolf"({{Zh|c=大狼|p=Dà láng}}). Story is, in August 22 2011, Yao Yuanjun was killed in action after he drowned while fighting drug traffickers in the China-Myanmar border. He was formerly the K9 Handler of "Big wolf", and Big wolf became famous on social media after he was seen wandering training grounds, waiting for Private Yao to return.(very similar to the Hachikō story.) Currently, the story is already on the Border defense corps section of the PAP article, on the List of Individual dogs list along with Private Yao being on the List of people's armed police personnel killed in the line of duty. (Skip to bottom for article name ideas)

For notability, this story has been covered by a lot of Chinese media, such as [https://m.thepaper.cn/baijiahao_13547220 The paper], [https://news.sina.cn/2021-07-12/detail-ikqcfnca6452649.d.html City daily] [https://news.sina.com.cn/c/2011-09-01/182823090320.shtml China National Radio], [https://m.cyol.com/gb/articles/2022-09/30/content_9OOAxHa3M.html the Communist Youth League of China], [https://m.bjnews.com.cn/detail/1712113988129790.html The beijing news], [http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2015/0626/c70731-27209927.html People's Daily], [https://xinwen.bjd.com.cn/content/s67efeb85e4b08edd28f72868.html Beijing daily], [https://www.163.com/dy/article/JD89U0UN0514JPDH.html?f=post2020_dy_recommends the Chongqing municipal anti-narcotics office], the [https://www.mps.gov.cn/n2253534/n4904351/c5062423/content.html Ministry of Public Security], [https://www.guancha.cn/politics/2025_04_05_771041.shtml Guancha], and [https://www.sohu.com/a/476909010_267106 Xinhua]; It also became pretty famous on chinese social media(at the time at least); additionally, Private Yao also received martyr status(which is a pretty high military award in china).

Now for the main question:

What should I name the article(and how should i refer to K9 Big Wolf)? I currently have several ideas:

Names related to Yao Yuanjun

1. Yao Yuanjun (since a lot of coverage is also on the border defense policeman/soldier himself and per articles like Nathan Bruckenthal and Frank S. Reasoner)
2. Death of Yao Yuanjun (per Murder of D. Munusamy and similar articles)

Names related to K9 Big Wolf, and how I should refer to him in the article

1. K9 Big Wolf (K9 is used by police as a title for police dogs, similar to how we call policemen "Officer"; Big wolf is his name translated)
2. K9 Dalang (大狼 or Dalang is the K9's name directly in Pinyin)
3. Big Wolf (Police dog)
4. Dalang (Police dog)

Not-so-Perfect Compromise

1. Yao Yuanjun and K9 Big Wolf
2. Yao Yuanjun and K9 Dalang

My personal opinion

I would prefer Yao Yuanjun or Death of Yao Yuanjun, as even without the tragic part involving his K9 he would still be rather notable. As for how I should refer to Big Wolf/Dalang, I would prefer using the english translation of "Big Wolf". Sounds much better, and unlike human names, dog names can usually be translated. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:If nobody objects or proposes any other ideas within 2 days I will go with Yao Yuanjun for the article name and refer to the police dog as K9 Big Wolf Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yep I will be going with the above here Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:141st Special Motorized Regiment#Screwed up. --Altenmann >talk 04:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Partial reply. Official Marine Corps sources online support the sparse text. Each of the three units also have separate pages. The immediate problem for me in providing the sources is that I could not readily discern whether the composition of the three component units is the same as when the article was first added to Wikipedia. Maybe someone can pick this up from here. I can't spend more time on it now. I committed to work on a GA reassessment in addition to usual coordinator tasks that I handle. I have a few "real life" commitments presently as well. If this sits long enough without improvement, I will try to look at the sources again to see if the current composition of the units and necessary citations can be found and added. I thought it would be a little progress to post this note about available sources online. Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749528075}}

{{rfc|hist|lang|rfcid=A473899}}

A debate has arisen regarding what is the proper definition for "tank battle" over on Talk:Operation Brevity#"Tank Battle"?. There appear to be two competing definitions up for selection. Which of the following definitions should be used when deciding whether to classify a military engagement on Wikipedia as a "tank battle"?

:(A) A "tank battle" should be defined as any military engagement where tanks are employed by at least one side.

:(B) A "tank battle" should only refer to military engagements where tank-on-tank combat constituted a significant proportion of the fighting.

Emiya1980 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:C: A tank battle is what reliable sources describe as a tank battle. It would be WP:OR to apply a label that isn't supported by reliable sources. Curbon7 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::How do RS define a "tank battle" though? Is said definition closer to A or B? Assuming that A and B are not sufficiently broad to cover RS's definition of a tank battle, what do RS say it is then? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::The trouble with RS is that 'tank battle' seems like an alien post hoc construction. They don't have a concept of 'not tank battle' either. Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If an RS calls it a tank battle so can we, As you say, it's not really clearly defined, and we can't use OR to define it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes C seems the safest, we go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::: In terms of how RS define a tank battle, doesn't this misunderstand RS? These are independent sources, who do not need to have a shared definition of anything. The best you can hope for is "widespread consensus", and this may not exist in all cases. From my own reading I'd guess most histories think of a tank battle as one in which tanks played a significant role, as opposed to simply being present, but beyond that vague idea I don't feel qualified to venture. Monstrelet (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It does not. RS do not have to agree with each other -- it's great if there is a clear consensus, but if not we can point out narratively how said sources describe it through attribution or by appropriately caveating. For instance, "The Battle of 73 Easting was, according to Source X, one of the most significant tank battles of the 20th century" or "The Battle of Kursk was a 1943 tank battle" (with an appropriate footnote citing both sets of the disputed references after "tank battle"). The point being that we do not have to -- nor should we -- use our own OR here. We have a number of ways for handling situations where RS disagree or a clear consensus does not exist. Also, folks should consider that the absence of an RS describing something a certain way, is not the same thing as them disputing that characterization. If one set of sources all describe something as a tank battle, it is not in dispute simply because other sources omit describing it as such; it *is* in dispute if they expressly contradict that distinction. The opposite of "tank battle" is "not a tank battle", not simply "a battle" or even "an air battle" as these things are not mutually exclusive. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support B

:was on the fence but Monstrelet point convinces me - not every reliable source is going to use the exact words, this is only a category I think some common sense needs to prevail and allow us to categorise according to reasonable understandings of English and sense.

:Also in support of North8000, A is far too inclusive to the point of not being useful as a category LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Invited by the bot. Of course if the sources give guidance that's the best. But you don't need a source for every word used. "B" is pretty safe for this. "A" is far too inclusive to support using the term unless there is a good source which characterized it as such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Tank losses aren't always a good criteria for this determination, either (and although no one is mentioning that here, it does feature in the linked discussion that prompted this query). The Germans in particular had excellent maintenance and repair units operating very close to the front lines, and it took quite a bit for them to declare a tank as having been destroyed. Tanks engaged seems a far better benchmark, especially if you're not using RS. I would support "B" if it came down to it.Intothatdarkness 12:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

What does "significant proportion of the fighting" mean? Consider the Second Battle of Villers-Bretonneux. This was the first time that one tank fought another. (Three German tanks engaged three British tanks.) For that reason, it passes C, as many sources tout it as the very first tank battle, but passing B requires "a significant proportion of the fighting" to refer to the historiography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:Clearly there will be exceptions. This appears to be one. But once you leave, say, World War I B becomes more viable. Intothatdarkness 02:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::With regards to Villers-Brettoneux, context is important. During World War I, armored warfare and tank production itself was in its infancy so it naturally follows that tanks didn't play nearly as big a part as in later conflicts. However, even considering that tank-on-tank engagements in World War I played a smaller role in warfare and were smaller in general compared to later wars, it was Villers-Brettoneux which witnessed the very birth of that kind of combat. The fact that it set the precedent for all future tank battles to come merits its inclusion. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Until someone can adequately explain how B is going to be enforced (and you will not be able to), it's a dead letter. "Well, Battle A is a tank battle, because 20% of the forces engaged were tanks, but Battle B isn't, because only 19% of forces were tanks." Hard pass, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Operation Brevity is where the question arose. Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::RS show that there were tank-on-tank engagements between large groups of tanks. That is the requirement which must be met. Emiya1980 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's not what B says. But setting that aside, who defines "large groups"? Give me a number of tanks.

:::::You seem to think this is an easy question to answer, because you have a particular end state for a single article in mind; but as someone who routinely has to manage the implications of these sorts of policy decisions in their day job, I can assure you that things get far messier, far more quickly, than you seem to be thinking. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The easiest solution might be to simply quote an RS that describes an engagement as a "tank battle" and go from there. If there's disagreement in the sources, that can be added to the article as well. Intothatdarkness 19:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Why are we trying to decide what we think a tank battle is? Present reliable sources that provide that answer, or on a case by case basis describe an article as a "tank battle" where the sources do the same. We're here to write an encyclopaedia, not provide our own input on events. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::How about subjecting each military engagement to the following test?

::::::::(a)Do one or more RS specifically classify it as a "tank battle"? IF NOT, THEN proceed to (b).

::::::::(b)Do RS show the following?

:::::::::(1)There were at least a dozen tanks employed by each side in the engagement AND

:::::::::(2)Tank-on-tank combat took place in the engagement.

:::::::::Emiya1980 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{ping|Keith-264|Parsecboy|Intothatdarkness}} Any thoughts on aforementioned proposal? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Yes, my thoughts are that your fundamental conception of the issue is fatally flawed; I would have hoped that it was predictable from my previous comment that any number you came up with would be arbitrary, and I would immediately ask what's special about 12 tanks. To whit: why would an action between 11 tanks per side not count as a tank battle? "B" is unworkable on its face, because as I and numerous others here have tried to explain to you, the only thing we should be considering is what reliable sources say. Parsecboy (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Stick with RS. If it doesn't say, don't make things up. That's already happening in enough areas of wikipedia (see the ongoing battles over capitalization). Intothatdarkness 14:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:C seems the only option here, given that per WP:V and WP:RS we need to follow what reliable sources say, not whatever the views of Wikipedia editors are. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::What about cases where RS do not explicitly refer to military engagements as "tank battles" even while providing significant evidence that large groups of tanks fought against one another? Emiya1980 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Trust the judgement of the editor who puts the category in.Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If RS do not expressly characterize it as a "tank battle", then it is OR. That seems to be the take-away of the discussion here. Emiya1980 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines#Usage of definite article "the" about the use of definite articles before ship names that might be of interest to editors of this wikiproject. Llammakey (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like India and Pakistan just went hot -- not sure if we have an article of the appropriate scope but given that this is now an active shooting war, presumably there's going to be one created shortly that could use the eyes of this WP. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:2025 Indian missile strikes on Pakistan is already live. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks -- article names are such a tricky thing these days, that I had no idea what to search for exactly. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, if there's an obvious tittle among what you searched, make sure to create those redirects. CMD (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately the problem is that there's not an obvious title (and I was searching before it was linked from anywhere, e.g. the main page) and there's already a pair of RMs up for people fighting over the existing title. Given that uncertainty, I'm not interested in pre-emptively creating a bunch of redirects for potential possible names, only to find the article changing name by the time I'm done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think it's also just a byproduct of trying to cover a new development or event. Would it be 2025 Indian missile strikes on Pakistan, 2025 Indian-Pakistani conflict, etc.? It's tough to determine whether an article has already been created for a current event since there is always some ambiguity as to how it will be defined (and by extension article title). Tylermack999 (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I had this question raised during discussion on the Iron Dome article. Are there clear guidelines as to who qualifies as a "user" of a weapon system? For instance, parts of the Iron Dome system have been purchased by multiple countries, do we include these partial deployments as operators? Additionally, what kind of source (primary or secondary) is needed to determine whether a nation can be considered an operator/user? For instance, there are many rumors floating about (many dressed up as confirmed) of x or y nation purchasing the Iron Dome for missile defense. What sources can be considered verifiable for this information? Tylermack999 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Smallangryplanet

:In general, I look for an announcement of a deployment or an announcement of initial operational capacity (IOC) in order to call a nation an "operator"; to me that's the lowest common unambiguous denominator for that kind of classification that's applicable to the widest array of militaries. Other criteria can certainly apply or qualify, but are frequently more ambiguous or debatable, and regardless we should be deferring to what reliable sources say (which is why I prefer statements of IOC or deployment announcements, both of which are frequently covered by RS as well as being an acceptable WP:ABOUTSELF source by themselves). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.militaryfactory.com/

What do you guys think? Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Not really. It has no clear ties to a media publication and is a self-published source. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::It has been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard both in 2018 and in 2022 and both times it has been characterised as scraping content from other sources with no oversight. I'd steer well clear - Dumelow (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey

may I ask if anyone could help me improve the quality of this photo? :File:CCG patch.png

Since it was a screenshot from a larger photo the quality is pretty bad. For the text, the top says "中华人民共和国"; under that is 海警

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

|}

Quite surprised to see we don't have an article on this, and for it not to be mentioned at Military history#Historiography of military history, some sources for anyone interested:

• [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230625372_14 Palgrave Advances in Modern Military History, chapter: New military history (2006)]
• [https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-02866-4_87-1 Handbook of Military Sciences, entry: “New” Military History (2025)]
• [https://www.jstor.org/stable/26303481?seq=1 The "New Military History" and Army Historians (1984)]

Kowal2701 (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the origin of battlefield archaeology that may be of interest to members of this project here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Editor 12.171.47.210 has used data from BRUCE OLIVER NEWSOME, I wonder if the books are self-published and should be subject to scrutiny in case the editor and the author are the same. Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Certainly seem to be self-published - one of the books is published by "Tank Archives Press", which is described here as [https://www.panzerwrecks.com/product-category/tank-archives-press/ "the brainchild of Bruce Oliver Newsome"]. Parsecboy (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Does the scope of WP:MILHIST also include unarmed coast guards like the CMSA or the Canadian coast guard? Additionally, do unarmed coast guards used for paramilitary purposes like the CMS fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST even though they are unarmed? On the same topic, do armed agencies with a civilian law enforcement role (like the CBP Air and Marine Operations) fall under WP:MILHIST?

If there are no rules on this yet, I propose one of 5 solutions:

1. All coast guards fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST
2. Only armed coast guards like the USCG or CCG fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST
3. Unarmed coast guards fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST if they are used for non-search and rescue military purposes (e.g. CMS)
4. Unarmed coast guards fall under the scope of WP:MILHIST if they are organizationally under the military, such as Mexican Maritime Search and Rescue
5. All armed coast guards with military weapons(e.g. CBPAMO) fall under WP:MILHIST regardless of role

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would say (4). Even if unarmed, if they are organizationally part of the military, they're...well...part of the military. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with you that agencies organizationally under the military fall under WP:MILHIST, though this could lead to some pretty funny situations, such as with the {{Ill|China Fire Services|zh|公安消防部队}}, who as part of the MPSASF were manned by People's armed Police personnel (though in terms of command it was under the ministry of public security) and whose firefighters were often referred to "soldiers" in chinese media and received active service member benefits(In fact, i saw on social media people claiming to be CFS veterans say CFS firefighters were armed, though I found no reliable sources on this).

::That said, I do agree that all agencies under the military or manned by what is legally speaking military personnel should fall under WP:MILHIST, regardless of their role. Main problem is whether unarmed agencies not under the military with military roles or armed agencies with a civilian law enforcement role should fall under WP:MILHIST, like the CMS and CBPAMO Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think it is clear that coast guards which are not under military control are not within the scope of the project. Civilian law enforcement and search and rescue by non-military coast guards cannot be considered "military" in any sense without military control, as I interpret the topics we cover. I know about some strange organizational set-ups by the Chinese and used the same interpretation to find one of them within the scope of the project (reluctantly) while I would have considered it outside the scope before the reorganization. I think that the Chinese calling firefighters and others "soldiers" is a euphemism used for their own purposes (morale?, more general government control? something else?) that we cannot take literally for purposes of the project. See note 2 of what topics do we cover. I have done quite a few bot assessment reviews and there are occasional close calls or judgment calls. I think the coast guard variations do not present one of them. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover? Donner60 (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::CMSA and canadian coast guard I agree that it should not count as WP:MILHIST

::::For pre-2018 Chinese firefighters, there can be some debate; Post 2018 chinese firefighters are definitely not under Wikiproject military history; If you want the full context see Ministry of Public Security Active Service Forces#China Fire Services and People's Armed Police#Forestry Corps; Regarding your claim that the term "Soldiers" was used as a euphemism, firefighters being referred as "soldiers" only really happened between 1982 and 2018 during the existence of the China Fire Services, and it only referred to the CFS firefighters who were people's armed police personnel, NOT volunteer or private firefighters which were simply referred to as "firefighters". The official use of the term "soldiers" does not happen to National fire and rescue administration firefighters since they are officially civilian government employees.

::::Summary:

::::{{Ill|People's Armed Police Forestry Corps|zh|中國人民武裝警察部隊森林部隊}} When it was originally founded in 1949 it was meant to conduct forest patrol and counterinsurgency against IJA and KMT holdouts. After the 60s it primarily was used to fight forest fires, however some forestry corps personnel were still seen with guns in photos and they also partially had a law enforcement role. After 2018 it became provincial forest fire contignents and lost their firearms and law enforcement role. Between 1982-2018 it was under the command of the PAP.

::::{{Ill|China Fire Services|zh|公安消防部队}}/Firefighting corps: From start to end it was always primarily a firefighting agency HOWEVER was part of the MPSASF meaning it was under the command of the Ministry of public security however were manned by PAP personnel and had military ranks. However unlike the forestry corps it was always solely used for firefighting, although apparently they were also used in show of force parades(from some biographies on the Ministry of Public Security website's Honor roll), and according to some less then reliable sources on Chinese social media claiming to be CFS veterans, they would have firearms.

::::Both PAPFC and CFS firefighters were considered active service members since they were from the People's armed police and would receive veterans benefits. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:FYI I usually follow 3 and 4 when it comes to adding wikiprojects to the talk page banner shell. 4 is due to them being in the military after all, and 3 is because many coast guards similar to the CMS are associated with the military. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:For me the general rule would be (4), but with the possibility open for exceptions where relevant. For instance, the canonical example in my opinion would be the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, whose actions during Dunkirk certainly merit scope of coverage under MILHIST, but they're a purely civilian entity.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• !vote for #1 because... sure, why not? - \\'cԼF 05:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• This is, presumably, a discussion concerning an amendment to or a clarification of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover?, and this talk page is absolutely the right place to do that. But on a procedural note, this shouldn't have been taken to an RfC. There are two reasons for this:
• #I see no indication that a prior discussion on this matter has reached deadlock (see WP:RFCBEFORE)
• #It has long been established that each WikiProject defines its own scope (this is one of the few areas where WP:OWN does not apply), so it should be a discussion for Milhist participants. An RfC pulls in all manner of random outsiders. Like me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Oh ok understood. thanks for the clarification. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::*I quite agree and suggest that this be closed and a discussion opened as whether and why we need to do more than consider each "coast guard" article against what the reliable sources say. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*Concur; we don't need to try to adopt some project-wide decision about scope when each situation is a little different. Each should be evaluated on their own, based on what the sources say. And if there's a dispute about a specific service, then we can resort to a project discussion/RfC. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently the "commanders and leaders" section of the infobox for Operation Cobra lists Lesley McNair, who was killed in action due to friendly fire during the battle and was the highest ranking US officer to be KIA in the European Theater of Operations. However, at the time McNair had no actual command and was listed commander of the fake First United States Army Group only there as an observer to add to the deception tactics of Operation Quicksilver. There should definitely be more written about McNair in the article itself and also there should be a mention of his death in the lede, but I don't think he should be listed in the infobox as he didn't command any combat units. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::I will remove him for now per WP:BEBOLD, but also added a discussion at Talk:Operation Cobra. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)