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.
Found this while
patrolling. I can't find references to an "Anglo-Turkish War" using basic google searches, which seems odd given the scale of this article and the large countries involved? I am also wary that this might be a
WP:FORK of
Turkish War of Independence, which is an article with neutrality issues. Therefore I bring it here for your consideration. thanks.
Aszx5000 (
talk)
15:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Multiple new articles on Israeli-Palestinian conflict pushing "martyrdom" POV
hey all, I've noticed a bunch of new articles from
MWQs that are full of synth and are extreme violations of
WP:NPOV.
This one, that I nominated for deletion,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executions and assassinations in the West Bank and Jerusalem, pushes a martyrdom POV and contains Jesus and Eichmann and Jewish and Palestinian terrorists in the same list; it's language is like that: "An eye for an eye", "King of Martyrs", "he refused to commit sin unto the point of shedding blood", "The Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa", "prominent militant".
Other articles by this user are also problematic:
The killing of the wife, daughter, and infant son of Mohammed Deif fails to mention the reason of the attack, and it reads like "IDF just attacked a random house of an innocent Deif". It can be notable, but it should at least be moved to "Deif family massacre" or something similar. It also has the same NPOV problem: "her previous husband was a martyred Qassami fighter", "high-ranking members of so called "terrorist" organisations".
@
Artem.G. You are welcome to add the "reasons for the attack" on "
The killing of the wife, daughter, and infant son of Mohammed Deif" if you think it's missing? I thought it already mentioned that it was a failed assassination attempt? What is missing? I would appreciate other contributions to the page. The information about who Deif is is covered extensively elsewhere on wiki, but if you want to summarise it in the background section of that page then that would be very welcome.
MWQs (
talk)
05:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Artem.G if you prefer "
Deif family massacre" it can be that? There is currently an open discussion on the talk page, please contribute. "
2014 Deif family massacre" was actually a title I was using for it previously, but I changed it FROM that because I thought that title was too POV and the descriptive title was a more encyclopedic? But if I got that backwards, it can change back.
MWQs (
talk)
05:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Artem.G regarding
Executions and assassinations in the West Bank and Jerusalem I found the history of executions in that region notable enough to start the page because there was such a diversity of events. I think that was highlighted in the intro? The "he refused to commit sin unto the point of shedding blood", is directly taken from another wiki article, I summarised a few others. The "eye for an eye" is a quote from the speech by
Ahmad Saadat, I probably did get the tone wrong, but it was just a "working title" for that section, if you can think of a better one, just change it? Wikipedia is designed to be collaborative, if you think something is missing you can add it, and if you think something can be improved, you can improve it.
MWQs (
talk)
05:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If it's a quote, it should be attributed and sourced, see
Wikipedia:Quotations. If the article is a work in progress, it's better to write it in your sandbox or in the draft space. My main concern here is synthethis, as it was very strange to me to see Jesus, Eichmann, and various terrorists in the same list. I would advise you to read
Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material. You're right that everything can be improved, but IMO not everything should be a standalone article, especially if there is "such a diversity of events".
Artem.G (
talk)
18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"
Eye for an eye" is a common expression, it's a cleche / ideom / expression. Not the sort of thing you could attribute to Saadat for including it in a speech. I agree it was a bad subheading, I've changed it now. But if you didn't like that heading, why didn't you just change it?
MWQs (
talk)
00:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a collection of "thing-in-place". The thing and the place are both a bit fuzzy edged, I asked for it to be moved to drafts, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to just do that myself? I was trying to fill a gap caused by related articles that focus a lot on Israel and the Gaza Strip, but leave out the West Bank. Abu Ali Mustafa didn't make sense without Ze'evi, so I expanded to neighbouring Jerusalem, and then it was weird to leave out the most famous execution in Jerusalem? The thing they have in common is that they're interesting / famous / notable. That's the usual inclusion criteria?
MWQs (
talk)
04:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Does anyone know anything about this organization? The aims and goals are so obviously beneficial to the Soviet Union, I do wonder if there was any direct or indirect ties between them.
Harizotoh9 (
talk)
20:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If it's a USSR front organization, then that should be mentioned in the article because that's currently missing from the article. The organization has come up recently in the news since Charlie Chaplin gave a speech at one of their meetings in 1942.
Harizotoh9 (
talk)
20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The primary point of contention is whether or not to include the
Moro Rebellion (1899-1913) within the article's info box. This placement expresses a view that the Philippine-American War did not in fact end with President Roosevelt's proclamation on July 4, 1902. It asserts the armed conflict, as a matter of fact, ended over a decade later. The single sentence in the article body used to justify the Moro Rebellion's info box inclusion asserts, "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war." The opposing revisions can be found
here and
here with related discussions
here,
here and
here.
What I care about primarily is whether or not info box inclusion of the Moro Rebellion, juxtaposed against the canonically recognized July, 4 1902 date, will prevent this article from being assessed GA, A and eventually FA. A decision needs to be made regarding a single date that caps the episode labeled "Philippine-American War", as a matter of fact. Any input and thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Chino-Catane (
talk)
01:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree. That's what I have been asking @
141.155.35.58 for. So far, one verified
WP:RS citation has shown that one historian makes the claim that the "Philippine War" ended in 1913. Does the expression of this view by a single individual warrant inclusion of the Moro Rebellion in the article's info box, juxtaposed with the canonically recognized end date?
Chino-Catane (
talk)
15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Brian Linn, a recognized authority on the conflict, uses the 1902 date in the titles of both his major works on the subject. And the linked Moro Rebellion article may list 1899 in the article title, but the infobox has the conflict beginning in 1902.
Intothatdarkness13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for pointing out that discrepancy. I'll make inquiries as to why that exists. The point of contention between myself and
141.155.35.58 is the claim that "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war", which is subsequently used to justify juxtaposing the Moro Rebellion dates with canonically recognized dates in the info box. This suggests to viewers that there exists active debate among experts about when this retroactively recognized war actually ended. I question the assertion that this debate even exists among subject-matter experts.
Chino-Catane (
talk)
15:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I suspect someone just changed the article title or lede without looking at the infobox. There are other articles that experience similar issues (
American Indian Wars, for example, is routinely targeted by people wanting to change the end date to something found in NO RS).
Intothatdarkness15:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Gettysburg Cyclorama has been nominated for a 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.
Z1720 (
talk)
19:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Encounters with persistent Vietnam-based IP editor on tank design topics
After checking some recent edits and going through article histories, I noticed frequent, anonymous edits (mostly geolocated to Bắc Giang, Vietnam) that have added near-identical material to several related articles.
These edits have some common characteristics: they cite speculative or unreliable sources, falsify a cited source, inject discussion of logistics and cost-effectiveness into a discussion about vulnerability to ammunition cook-off, or make claims about Western tank designs that are either unsourced or close to tautologically obvious. The net effect on the article is also similar: the relative vulnerability of Soviet/Russian tanks to catastrophic ammunition explosions, as compared to Western tanks, is minimized or justified in terms of design trade-offs; the effectiveness of the 9M133 Kornet anti-tank missile and other Soviet/Russian weapons is emphasized. (Another trait of the editor(s) in question is edits to
Recognition of same-sex unions in Vietnam and articles on battles involving Soviet forces in World War II.)
To be clear, I think an analysis of tank design choices would be good to have on this encyclopedia, but it would need to be properly sourced and appropriately placed, instead of being spammed across multiple articles. As far as I can tell, members of this project, including me, have either reverted or pared down these edits wherever we have found them. Who else has encountered this, and has anyone tried to reach out to the editor(s) involved, to discuss how their contributions could be improved?
Huntthetroll (
talk)
23:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
PQ and QP convoys coordinates question
I haven't added coordinates for the recent revision and expansions I've undertaken and wonder if anyone can suggest a generic one for the route. Murmansk might suit but it is the terminus, perhaps it would be better to pick somewhere half-way there? Thanks
Keith-264 (
talk)
10:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You could find the route off-wiki (eg google Earth KML) and link to that but coords of a single location or start and finish aren't really helpful. You have maps in the articles? they do a better job. In fact, I've reverted the addition to PQ1 as not helpful. The only guidance I've seen says " Coordinates should [also] be added to articles about events that are associated with a single location"
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
11:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I worked out the coordinates of the engagement then found that it was in Slovenia, rather than the Bay of Biscay.... Does anyone know where I can get the real coords? Thanks
Keith-264 (
talk)
17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Policy on cited sources for Background section of on-going armed conflict
Is it against Wikipedia policy or standard practice to cite sources providing background information for an on-going armed conflict, published before the start of the conflict? See the
Talk and text-search for "outdated sources" to jump to the relevant part of the discussion.
Chino-Catane (
talk)
21:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
After finding links to this non-existent but extremely specific article
addedby an anonymous
editor from
Istanbul, I tried to find reliable sources that could confirm the events of the battle, which allegedly occurred in February 2001 on the border between Burma and Thailand. Here is what I found in English-language Google and Wiki searches:
Articles from
The Guardian (
[1]) and
CNN (
[2],
[3]) confirm that there were Burmese-Thai border clashes in February 2001, in which
Myanmar Army soldiers seized a
Royal Thai Army border post and a Thai counterattack recaptured it, and that the two sides gave differing accounts of the battle. These sources also mention that the Burmese-Thai clash was a consequence of [Myanmar confict|fighting] between the Myanmar Army and the Shan State Army, one of numerous ethnic minority militias within Myanmar/Burma.
An
article from the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, an Indian think tank, briefly describes the battle, mentioning that the Thai border post was located near a settlement called Ban Pang Noon.
An
opinion piece from
The Japan Times also locates the battle near Ban Pang Noon but cannot be read in its entirety without a subscription. Another
account that dates and locates the battle was submitted to the
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization in February 2001 by Sai Myo Win, General Secretary of the Shan Democratic Union.
This article in
The Irrawaddy also describes the battle in some detail. Finally, I found an
article, published by the
International Boundaries Research Unit in the spring 2001 issue of the IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin, that explicitly identifies the objective of the battle (according to the Thai government) as "Thai Army Rangers’ Base Number 9631, near Ban Pang Noon, in Chiang Rai’s Mae Pah Luang district".
An exact-text search for "border post 9631" brings up two
different blog
posts and several forum posts (
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7]) that discuss the battle, none of which qualify as reliable sources. However, the blog posts are extremely detailed; one directly translates the dueling accounts of the Thai and Burmese militaries.
The archive of the reg.burma mailing list at burmalibrary.org has an extensive collection of news, analysis and commentary from the time,
including a full version of the Japan Times piece mentioned earlier.
As for non-English sources, there is a detailed article on Thai Wikipedia at
th:กรณีพิพาทกู่เต็งนาโย่ง, along with other Thai sources that can be found by searching for "ด่านชายแดน 9631". Burmese-language sources might be found by searching for "နယ်ခြားမှတ်တိုင် ၉၆၃၁" or "နယ်ခြားမှတ်တိုင် 9631", although I think that the Myanmar Army has a different name for the battle (maybe "Hill O-7", as translated
here. I can't speak or read a word of either language, but machine translation suggests that the sources for the th-wiki article could be useful. There is also a Norwegian Wikipedia article at
no:Den thailandsk-burmesiske grensekonflikten i 2001, an
article in Swedish at thailandshistoria.se, and a
blog post in Dutch at thailandblog.nl.
Our articles on the military forces of those (and most other South East Asian) countries tend to be low quality and often include hoax material, so I wouldn't give any weight to the Wikipedia redlinks or Wikipedias in other languages here.
Nick-D (
talk)
01:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I thought that it might be a hoax too, which is why I spent some time determining if there were any independent, reliable sources that could verify that it happened. It seems to have been a real event that received international attention, just not one that merits such a hyper-specific title. An actual article on it would obviously have to draw on the news and journal articles that I linked, as well as other reliable sources if such could be found.
Huntthetroll (
talk)
02:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply