Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military Incompetencies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military Incompetencies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list has only just been created, but is already a massive opinion piece. I removed two entries due to them not being factually accurate, ignoring context, and being un-sourced opinions. Looking over most of the rest, they all suffer from the same problems. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - - - - - - -

If you are going to remove items from this list for being factually inaccurate, perhaps you might also like to remove them from the older List of military disasters. This list is to a great extent, at present, a much shorter version of that one. If the principle you choose is factual accuracy, you can add more value by attending to the longer list, perhaps.

When you assert that the rest of the entries in the list "suffer the same problems", are you really saying that the list typically contains no examples of military incompetence? The Charge of the Light Brigade, to take just one example, is reckoned by most experts and non experts as a case of military incompetence.

Might I venture to suggest that you think over your opinion that this list is a massive opinion peace, and perhaps check also whether you meant to use that spelling—perhaps you are angry for some reason and are writing in a great rush? The article begins by giving the criteria for military incompetence, from two noted authorities. These definitions can be used to filter the list.

The value of this list is that it may well save lives, by providing a ready reference of what our political and military leaders have got wrong in the past.

I have given a few specific examples of where I believe the facts contradict your assertions. Before proceeding with your impulse to wipe out this list in what feels to me like a sort of unintentional WikiNapalming of work done with honest and humanitarian intent, would you mind terribly taking the time and trouble to write down the evidence for, say, three examples to support your assertion that they suffer from "not being factually accurate [and] ignoring context".

"CourtCelts"

CourtCelts1988 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I note that Wikipedia's policy is that before nominating an article for deletion, editors should consider contacting the page creator. No one contacted me. I also note that the policy reminds us all that many pages start out badly and that editors should try to be tolerant. Of course professional Wikipedians must probably do what they will, but I am a little surprised at the apparent gap between Wikipedia's own guidelines and the way that this article has so far been handled.

- - - - - - - - - - -

I would like to note that I have also looked a the disasters list, and that could probably do with deletion too. But one battle at a time. Wiki is not in the business of trying to save lives or being a political soapbox, it is here to write articles based on reliable sources. So far, your list is largely based off opinions and news reports.

You would like three examples? Well, here is seven examples of misusing sources, lacking facts, and being opinions pieces.

Maginot Line - Absolutely no context of what the line was built for, or why the French held such mentality to construct it. Pure opinion that the French were acting incompetently when they designed a defensive system aimed at not repeating the First World War (heavy losses, and fighting on French soil to name a few). No source provided.
Operation Compass: Gives the incorrect position that was the Italian invasion and construction of camps. Lack of sources.
Operation Typhoon: Gross oversimplification of what happened. The German's are guilty of incompetence because they didn't bring enough antifreeze with them? No sources.
Stalingrad: Paulus is guilty of incompetence because of rubble in the streets and sending in his armoured units? I suppose Operation Charnwood should be added to the list, amongst practically every other urban battle of the war, based on that criteria. No sources.
Market Garden is deemed to have been a military incompetence because of the "slowness of the ground force". This, while open for debate, completely avoids the discussion amongst historians of the numerous faults with the plan from the airforce side of things, personality clashes, the airborne plan, and the ground plan (which had a Corp on either flank of XXX Corps advancing faster than XXX Corps were at some point in time). Not to mention anything is sourced.
HMS Cornwall: No source provided to indicate that the whole situation was due to incompetence. The article on the subject does declare while there was failings and a ""collective failure of judgment" that these "were not the result of a single gross failing or individual human error".[140]" That pretty much contradicts your opinion on the subject.
Misuse of sources to support your opinion for Operation Telic.

In addition, while no one would disagree that the first day of the Somme was a major disaster, I am left curious how the British staff officers are labeled incompetent for being unable to do anything about the large number of casualties. Considering the article on the subject has been heavily rewrote recently, it is seen that not enough ambulance trains were provided/arrived on time, the casualty clearing stations were swamped, stretcher-bearers were venturing into no-mans land, and in places truces were organized for retrieve the wounded.

Likewise, the Midway article does not use the term incompetent for what transpired nor does its sourced description match this articles. I could go on, looking at the other entries in the list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being too general/indiscriminate and failing WP:SALAT. Dixon's extremely broad definition of incompetence would, I believe, cover at least half the battles in history, probably more. Consider for example the first part of the American Civil War. Union incompetence galore! Same thing for World War I in the trenches. It is the job of commanders to entice their counterparts into making fatal blunders. Do we need a list of every time they succeeded? No. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EnigmaMcmxc. I note that CourtCelts1988 is involed in a content dispute on List of military disasters and this new article smacks of WP:POVFORK. Hamish59 (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious POVFORK. Note I have blocked the author for 24 hours for edit-warring on the List of military disasters page. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OK, the nom dropped the ball on notifying the creator, but he seems to have found out quickly enough. But yeah, this would cover half the battles in history -- look at the second part of the Civil War: Confederate incompetence galore! (Couldn't resist.) This'd make for not only a giant and unmaintainable list, but it'd be a constant edit warring battleground, what with dueling "Soandso was incompetent / No he wasn't" edits, all backed by reliable sources editorializing in favor of one commander or another. Nha Trang ^Allons! 13:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SYNTH/OR - the decision of what to include or not to include seems to have been based on OR here, and is very subjective. There's no source out there that would allow us to make an authoritative list of "military incompetencies," the decision of what to include is always going to be subjective and controversial. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SALAT and WP:POVFORK. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can think of few better examples of articles which seem designed to encourage the addition of POV rubbish and edit wars. Incidentally, nowhere does it say that nominators are obliged to notify the page creator. One would imagine they had articles they'd created on their watchlist, especially those only created that day... -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. There's a bit of POINT here as well, given the argument and shenanigans at the list of disasters. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have said, a POV fork. Additionally, the criteria for inclusion are vague and inherently OR. (That all four listed examples of 21st century "military incompetence" are critical of the same country is just a coincidence, I'm sure.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.