User talk:Loafiewa/Archives/2024 1
 | 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. |
The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
army-technology.com?/Army Recognition
Hello! re:your edits on Type 99 tank I don't see Army-Technology or Army Recognition on the WP:RSP list per your edit summary. Is there a particular reason why you are removing it? Schierbecker (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Armyrecognition doesn't appear on the main list, but it has been the subject of discussion (viewable within the noticeboard archive section), which have shown a pretty strong consensus that it is unreliable and should not be used. I thought it was the same for army-technology, specifically I thought it was known to be a circular source, but after searching on both the RSP and MilHist archives, I've not been able to find any discussions of the source, so I'm not actually sure about that one. Loafiewa (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah it looks like Army Recognition is maybe not the best. Should we start a discussion about Army-Technology? Schierbecker (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Looking again at army-technology, its editorial policy looks solid enough, for which I'd assume they're generally reliable. I've not participated in RSP discussions before, but I can open one on this if you'd still like a third opinion. Loafiewa (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, go for it! Schierbecker (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
List of military disasters
I doubt you reviewed the References because i gave 2 sources from both sides confirming the disaster
1- Stahel, D. (2012). Kiev 1941 p.223. From Nazi side "Adolf Hitler"
2- Evans, R. (2017) The Third Reich in History and Memory p. 344. From Soviet side "General Tupikov" CoffeeRZ (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neither of those are specifically about the subject of military disasters. Loafiewa (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- CoffeeRZ, you were told the same thing at my TP here. If you do not understand the inclusion criteria, then perhaps you should not be editing that article? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- i dont know why you want to control and monopolize the article, i bought 2 sources dealing with the subject as a military disaster and they are from opposite sides and from very reliable people i mean the leader of the winning side and a marshal from the losing side agreeing on the battle being a disaster
- 1- Stahel, D. (2012). Kiev 1941 p.223. From Nazi side "Adolf Hitler"
- 2- Evans, R. (2017) The Third Reich in History and Memory p. 334. From Soviet side "General Tupikov" CoffeeRZ (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- CoffeeRZ, you were told the same thing at my TP here. If you do not understand the inclusion criteria, then perhaps you should not be editing that article? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- CoffeeRZ, your sources may deal with the Battle of Kiev as a military disaster but they are not dealing with the subject of military disasters (in the plural). There is a very big difference, which it appears you do not understand. Compare your sources with those that are being cited in the article and which do satisfy the inclusion criteria. The criteria was the consensus of a discussion (here) involving multiple editors. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)