User talk:Cinderella157/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Internat Archive doohickey doesn't like this OS. Here is some of the lede, I think that should be within fair use.

"Aug. 18, 2023 The total number of Ukrainian and Russian troops killed or wounded since the war in Ukraine began 18 months ago is nearing 500,000, U.S. officials said, a staggering toll as Russia assaults its next-door neighbor and tries to seize more territory.

---snip---

Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injured troops. The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.

But Russians outnumber Ukrainians on the battlefield almost three to one, and Russia has a larger population from which to replenish its ranks. Ukraine has around 500,000 troops, including active-duty, reserve and paramilitary troops, according to analysts. By contrast, Russia has almost triple that number, with 1,330,000 active-duty, reserve and paramilitary troops — most of the latter from the Wagner Group."

[1]

Still not really here but I thought of an easier way to find it. And here you go: Roger Marshall (politician), one of the Republicans who tried to overthrown the last election. Otherwise an obscure follower of Ted Cruz of all people. Pretty much the personification of a politician who only talks to Fox News. Link = [[2]]

re excess mortality: I think you said that you couldn't substantiate that number either, so I probably *will* remove it. Not tonight though. Elinrubys

(talk) 07:45, 29 September 20e23 (UTC)

Re excess mortality. I agree that that seems to be the best methodology. However I may be confused. I thought I read that but about the New York Times source but didn't see that when I looked again. I will look into it some more tonight. For sure Meduza'e Bring out your Dead' uses that for Russian fatalities.

Re: getting you a copy: Looks like I am going to have to do a browser reinstall and as I recall the reason i haven't already done this is that it will require an oS reinstall, which my hardware won't support. I have an idea how to do this though; I will see if I can catch you in your waking hours tonight my time. I can't believe it isn't already archived but I can't even sign in to that website. Elinruby (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Elinruby for the transcript. It is always good to have the full context of an article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Then it's better to return the previous stable and consensual version ("Coalition military victory") with sources. Oloddin (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The see aftermath option would appear to be the most appropriate here. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What are your arguments against victory for the coalition?--Oloddin (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have re-added my edit on the Charge at Krojanty (September 1, 1939) to the list of Notable Charges. This time I made sure to include citations to primary sources, including ones in both Polish and English. I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if there are any other improvements I can make. Very Respectfully, CygnetRiver (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you CygnetRiver for opening this discussion. I see that you have now added sources to support the events of the charge. This is a good start; however, the issue is whether this is a notable charge that should described as such in the article - as would be established by (multiple) sources. The last sentence of your edit describes why this might be considered notable but it is an unsupported statement that can be considered as WP:OR. The edit still needs improvement in what is the critical issue as to whether this should be retained. I will be reverting your edit for these reason though it is my sincere wish that the issues identified in this feedback can be addressed. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback on my recent edit on Charge (warfare). I appreciate the clarification on how notability is the key criteria for inclusion in this particular list, and that my sources must support the claim that this charge was notable in some significant way. I stand by your correction at this time, until such a point that I come across new sources which can better support the claim that the charge at Krojanty is a notable charge. I am grateful for your feedback, and I hope to become a better editor through such corrections. Very Respectfully, CygnetRiver (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Cinderella157 sorry for bothering you i will be honest i am a not regular editor on articles regarding people. Personally i think removing the titles is wrong . I would also like to add that i was not aware of the talk page i have created a new section on the talk page and i would like to hear your opinions i have come up with an idea to both add the regnal titles and make sure the infobox is not bloated Friendlyhistorian (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to mention that this edit didn't actually ping the user. You need to add both the ping template and your signature to the page in the same edit. See H:PINGFIX for more info. — mw (talk) (contribs) 11:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Amakuru. Best wishes for a prosperous and happy year for you as well. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware of the "Supported by" discussion on Infoboxes (which I would have opposed). The IP who deleted the "Supported by" lines in Infoboxes is suspected of being recidivist socker Orchomen. regards Mztourist (talk) Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Mztourist, I thought you might have been unaware, just as I was about the socker. I can only say that the RfC was notified several places including MilHist. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I was on vacation when the discussion took place. Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I see no contradiction with the criteria the battle of kiev was a blunder which resulted in the collapse of the soviet army group south,

i really don’t see any contradictions in my edit with the criteria. CoffeeRZ (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

CoffeeRZ, the critera given is: Entries on this list are those where multiple sources dealing with the subject of military disasters have deemed the event in question to be a military disaster (or an equivalent term). [emphasis added] The subject of sources must be military disasters. Sources used to support other entries are specifically on the subject of military disasters. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Listen dude if the largest Encirclement in history isn't a military disaster i don't know what is CoffeeRZ (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Listen CoffeeRZ, we rely on what sources dealing with the subject of military disasters have to say on what are military disasters, not on the WP:OR of editors. That is what the inclusion criteria is telling us. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I respect your efforts in trying to cleanup the template in the 1965 war article, But it is unfair that I had to go through all the effort of making a collage, for it to be removed by one click. If it doesn’t fall into the category of WP:MONTAGE then edit it to do so, or provide feedback on how to. I have spent a day laying out those images in the infobox, Please respect my efforts and work. Titan2456 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

huh. What is this about? BTW, I reverted your edit. 20 upper (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

20 upper, apparently the penny dropped. But I am still not convinced this is an improvement. At least now, it is not a detriment. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I was also puzzled by the IP edits (128.234.103.232). 2A02:AB04:2C2:E300:50EC:F570:8AF1:5603 (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you have recently participated in a discussion at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Belligerents: supported by Belarus about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. Consequently, I inform you that a new Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion (see here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Russo-Ukrainian War) was started about the role of Belarus in the Russo-Ukrainian War and how it should be presented in this article. I think that a WP:RFC will be necessary to solve this serious dispute, but I believe that it should be organized by a qualified dispute solver via the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Your opinion is welcome in the new discussion. -- Pofka (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to encourage/attract more MILHIST nerds to do substantive content work on the war? Asking because I have no idea how the project works, apart from that they (technically, we) are all obsessed with battleships and obscure American Civil War units, and I definitely think that the rigorous (perhaps obsessive) attitude towards sourcing and stuff might go a long way towards producing good writing with less room for disputes. As it is every time David Axe writes a new piece some editor will decide that it must be prominently inserted, and a lot of other articles are near-daily accretions of updates with no coherent picture.

The real issue is that a distressingly high percentage of editors don’t have strong writing fundamentals and can’t weave originally phrased, tight prose out of sources. MILHIST people tend to be basically competent for some reason.

What I mean is, it’s not even a due weight issue most of the time, it’s just a clunky narrative flow. A lot of the battles end up leaving the reader with no concept of anything beyond a series of minutiae.

In terms of potential SYNTHy issues, there are a decent amount of high-quality sources by now on 2022. Not many books, of course, but there are a lot of retrospective analyses

Also, a lot of contributors (myself included) are losing interest and frankly I believe (as I guess I always have) that expanding a brigade or division’s page is more helpful than quibbling over an unduly weighted paragraph in a main article.

What do you think?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier, my paraphrasing of your observations would be that, many articles read like a news tickertape. Coverage is dominated by news reports with very little meat, though yes, we are starting to see some analytical coverage. Unfortunately, I think that the symptoms you describe are the very reasons some more experienced editors don't become all that involved. If approached through the project page though, they will comment on a specific issue and thereby give some balance to some of the more egregious issues of weight.

What I am starting to see is some review through more critical eyes of the plethora of minor articles that appeared through 2022. I guess that we can only keep plugging away at fixing the things we can. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Greetings Cinderella157. It seems we have similar opinions regarding the overuse of the phrase "battle of" on Wikipedia and we both recognize the dangers it poses for future citogenesis. I was not a Wikipedia editor at the time of your requested move of Russo-Ukrainian War "battles", but I would have been a strong supporter. With that being said, I want to create an article on the events of 1 March 2022 in Bashtanka, while avoiding becoming the first person to coin the term "Battle of Bashtanka", which I think we'd agree is a formal-sounding term implying previous use in scholarly sources, but in reality has not been previously used in the English language, according to Google. Could you suggest an alternative title? Would "Battle for Bashtanka" not carry similar implications? Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi SaintPaulOfTarsus, I could suggest engagement at or action at. I have had a brief look at things and I think it is pretty thin. With a pers:vehicle ratio of about 2.5:1 this strongly suggests a supply convoy. The reports of where it was from and where it was going to are contradictory? Information from the time suggests it was wandering about behind Ukrainian lines? This event may have more to do with creative imaginations in the fog of war in the first week or so of the invasion than any fact. See here regarding Vasylkiv and the alledged downing of Russian transport planes - all evidence of which has apparently been wiped from the face of the earth. Until recently, it had its own article (Battle of Vasylkiv). If I were invested in writing about the engagement at Bashtanka, I would do more research to confirm something satisfying WP:NOTABILITY and of substance actually happened there and it is not just another good story that should be catalouged under fiction. WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be roughly the same amount of information available on Bashtanka as on Voznesensk, which is a rather sparsely covered event itself; both incidents might be better served as paragraphs in Southern Ukraine campaign or an expanded-scope battle of Mykolaiv. I will assemble a draft article with what I am able to find and ask again for your assessment later on. Thank you SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

SaintPaulOfTarsus, the Battle of Voznesensk would appear to have more substance to it but there still appears to be a goodly smattering of fiction/propaganda. The size of the attacking force and the claimed casualties don't seem to gel. What I most notice is the number of claimed vehicle losses for the Russians and lots of photos but only one of a Russian AFV in refs 2 & 3. Call me a skeptic. So yes, we can see where a more objective viewing of the NEWSORG sources and WP:VNOT leads us. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Voznesensk is considered to have been significant because of its effect on the operational maneuver situation.

I’ve never heard of a significant engagement at Bashtanka. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t one, but it does suggest it was more of a “patriotic armed civilians take potshots at passing Russians with nonexistent security practices” similar to what allegedly occurred near Hadiach (a lot of the minor events during the meeting engagement phase are sadly not well documented e.g. it’s unclear whether the Battle of Vasylkiv referenced above ever happened).

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

One other point: we are very much limited regarding battle articles by the amount of coverage in sources. I can't overstate this. Thankfully we can wait for the oversize milhist volumes from British publishers (growing up they all were idk) to show up in libraries per WP:NODEADLINE. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

RadioactiveBoulevardier: Slightly off topic, but is there a protocol I should be following with respect to foreign-language sources? I have contributed to a number of entries in RUSUKR for which little high-quality English-language content that is not of the breaking-news variety exists. Naturally, there is much more in the way of good retrospective content in the original Ukrainian/Russian, but I often find it awkward adding so much content from these that the reference list contains a plurality of non-English articles. Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Greetings Cinderella157. Regarding your edits that removed the flags and wikilinks in the Infobox "Belligerents" section, citing "flags here serve no useful purpose," I respectfully disagree with this decision. The PRC flag is essential in that case to accurately differentiate between PRC and ROC.
As per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS guidelines, the use of flag icons in infoboxes is deemed appropriate for summarizing military conflicts. Notably, I have yet to encounter a military conflict infobox devoid of such representations, as evidenced by Operation Hailstone, which shares a notably similar structure. Skylisan (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Why did the revert on the article Raid on Tendra Spit remove so much of the article's content including: the infobox, units involved, the aftermath second, etc Salfanto (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The still-open Belarus RfC raises an interesting point for MILHIST infoboxes in general. Transit rights are by tacit precedent generally not mentioned without exceptional reasons; this is not codified in project or global RfC to my knowledge. Do you think that seeking a project or global RfC to formally clarify the matter, as you did with "supported by", would be a good idea?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Transit rights, if mentioned would usually be represented as "supported by". It is used in the case of Belarus in the invasion article because there is an affirmative consensus (RfC) to do so. I don't have an issue with "supported by" being used in this case. The sources are strong enough for us to say this in a Wiki voice, which is what the infobox is doing and its involvement is somewhat exceptional. As an aside, while I opened that RfC, I did not comment to either support or oppose the proposal. Similarly, I don't have a issue with the same thing happening in the Russo-Ukraine War, but I also think it could be left out because it is for part and not the whole of the war. A unqualified placement suggests the whole and a qualified placement leans to nuance - if you have to add notes etc it is probably best left out.

The present RfC is somewhat different in that it would advocate explicitly calling Belarus a co-belligerent. Apart from the issue with sources and whether it can be said in a Wiki voice, this is inherently problematic when the section of the infobox is labelled "belligerents" and everyone listed in a column is inherently a co-belligerent. The distinction that would be made by this is too subtle and too nuanced for an infobox. I guess I should vote! on the RfC now. I was putting it off to see where it was heading and what the arguments were. I don't see the "co-belligerent" option flying.

To answer your question, I think we are reasonably covered by the "supported by" RfC. This present RfC is an exception in my experience/recollection and doing anything to head it off at the pass is probably a solution looking for a problem (WP:BEANS - "and don't mention the war").  :) Cinderella157 (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You've cited MOS:MIL and MOS:CAPS as justification for reverting yet have apparently not looked at the policy in detail which states: 'Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources (Spanish Civil War, Battle of Leipzig, Boxer Rebellion, Action of July 8, 1716, Western Front, Operation Sea Lion). The generic terms (war, revolution, battle) take the lowercase form when standing alone'

Given that the sentence is talking about the 'Battle of Kyiv' and not just 'the battle' it should be capitalised. Historians always capitalise 'Battle of', if you're in any doubt find any history book and check. If you need cited sources for this specific capitalisation see: West Point and Wall Street Journal Ecrm87 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ecrm87, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Capitalization:

The general rule from MOS:CAPS is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name, as evidenced by consistent capitalization in reliable sources, it should be capitalized in Wikipedia. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is a proper name, consensus should be reached on the talk page; the MOS:CAPS default is to use lower case, unless and until evidence of consistent capitalization in the sources is presented.

See also MOS:MILTERMS, which reads:

Accepted names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, fronts, raids, actions, operations, and so forth are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in sources ... [emphasis added].

In other words, the default advice in the lead of MOS:CAPS applies. The default is to use lower case unless the term is consistently capped in sources and there is a burden to establish that it is consistently capped before applying capitalisation. So, while some sources might capitalise the term, it was lowercased because it does not meet the required threshold for capitalisation. Furthermore, we certainly do not always capitalise battle of X, per your edit summary. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That's just my point 'Battle of' is always capitalised in sources. You can't get more reliable sources in military matters than army colleges, whose purpose is to study these battles. They capitalise 'Battle of', historians capitalise 'Battle of' and I've already cited two leading examples accordingly. Ecrm87 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

While most well known battles capitalise battle of fairly consistently, this is not a universal rule (see this ngram) and the guidance is not telling us that it is a universal rule. Two sources do not tell us that it is consistently capped in sources but a review of news sources here and Google scholar here tells us that there is mixed capitalisation in sources and therefore, it should not be capitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)